Further to my recent post titled 'Time stood still...' I have been thinking about the lifeline they call the umbilical cord. Initiated by the fact that the shoulder dystocia that I experienced was combined with a nuchal cord and the recent 60 minutes documentary on birth choices that had women making reference to cord around the neck as a significant complication, I am prompted to discuss my thoughts and my recent research into what should be done, if anything.
For 259-294 days (more or less!) two arteries and one vein encased in whartons jelly transport everything that a fetus needs (and doesn't need) to ensure its survival. This supply line is the umbilical cord and it is what literally bonds mother and fetus. Damage, compression or compromise of the cord is associated with fetal compromise.
So what do we do when it comes to actually severing it? Controversial issue for many but for me it seems pretty simple. LEAVE IT!!
Unfortunately in practice this very rarely happens. It is not provided as an option similarly to physiological third stage. It is just done. Research that I have undertaken is not convincing as to reasons for active third stage and the use of syntocinon or syntometrine yet its the most common birth drug used and amazingly, never formally consented to by majority.
So what is the deal with cutting the cord or even checking for cord? Seems odd to me that it would be a problem because logic would have it that if the baby is born with nuchal cord than for a reality decent amount of time previous to labour and birth, the cord was around the neck. Even more logical is the possibility of it is happening. A baby freely moving within the amniotic fluid with something resembling a jump rope, seems highly likely that it is bound to wrap around something. So as normal as it is, what is the panic?
Common responses to this have been - short cord, very very tight around the neck, impeding on the ability of the baby to be born, etc... Hmmm...
So the head has been birthed and we have nuchal cord... at which point, the only oxygen supply is still the umbilical cord as baby still has not taken its first breath. So in making the decision to cut the cord at this point for whatever reason is dicey. Not only are we cutting the lifeline and oxygen supply, in doing so there is there is poor placental transfusion of blood that is vital to facilitating the blood flow through the lungs to initiate fetal ventilation. Further to this, there is the risk of hypovolaemia, pallor, anaemia, hypotension, hypothermia, hypoxia and respiratory distress etc... in comparison to possible bruising due to a tight cord.
Any baby that has a nuchal cord is in greater need of oxygen and yet it seems that the first thing that most do is deprive them of the most effective and efficient source. I have witnessed this decision being made and in almost every case it was a decision based on panic and uncertainty and more so the preempting of resuscitation being required.
Even more frustrating for me is the realisation that the process of resuscitation that seems to be in place completely contradicts the normal and physiological resuscitation that occurs. Not only is the cord cut, the cold-crying and cold-pressor reflexes are interrupted by the warmth from the resus trolley - the process that normally constrict the blood vessels of the cord and result in the placental transfusion that initiate ventilation and assist in closing of the foramen ovale and the beginning of fetal circulation. To add to the this, the entire process is done AWAY from the mother.
Something that I also read explained a lot about the normal and natural process of birth being interrupted rudely. Why is it that women refuse to cut the cord? Morley (2002) simply states that it has everything to do with with the mothers strong inhibition to 'damaging the cord'.
Like much of what I observe, its practice based on fear rather than fact. I found this quote - More proof that science, intervention and understanding have actually caused more harm than good. In 1842 it seemed so simple and yet somehow we have made it so difficult and contoversial.
“Let the loop be loosened to enable it to be cast off over the head. … [or] by slipping it down over the shoulders. … If this seems impossible, it should be left alone; and in the great majority of cases, it will not prevent the birth from taking place, after which the cord may be cast off. … Should the child be detained by the tightness of the cord, as does rarely happen, … the funis may be cut … Under such a necessity as this, a due respect for one’s own reputation should induce him to explain, to the bystanders, the reasons which rendered so considerable a departure from the ordinary practice so indispensable. I have known an accoucheur’s capability called harshly into question upon this very point of practice. I have never felt it necessary to do it but once. … The cord should not be cut until the pulsations have ceased.”
Charles D Meigs, M.D. Professor of Midwifery Philadelphia, 1842
Labels: Resuscitation of the Newborn, The Umbilical Cord, Troubling Tales of the System