Principle 17 states that every effect has a cause and every cause has effects. [Stephenson, 1927] Subluxation at birth does occur and is primarily due to the current obstetrical procedures routinely used today. Modern medicine has taken the natural and normal physiological event of childbirth and turned it into a codependent nine-month disease, relying mainly on the medical doctor to perform the delivery during which the head of the child is firmly gripped and rotational and tractional forces are applied.
The current birthing position, known as the supine lithotomy position, is the reason for dependency on the medical establishment. This position requires the birthing mother to be placed on her back with her feet in stirrups, forcing her to push the child out of the birth canal without the aid of gravity. Since this birthing position goes against a mother’s normal physiological innate abilities, the risk for intervention increases drastically. Pain and discomfort are increased and labor times are extended; thus, making it necessary for the doctor to intervene in the delivery process. This intervention by the medical doctor drastically increases the risk of vertebral subluxation to the newborn child. Dr. Mendelsohn states:
The supine lithotomy position is the basis for most of the intervention that is routine in modern obstetrical practice. It has effectively deprived women of all control over their childbirth experience. It has also made having babies infinitely more difficult, perilous, and painful, and provided obstetricians with countless seemingly rational reasons to come to the mother’s aid. [Mendelsohn, 1982, 152]
Interventions can lead to more interventions, each one potentially more dangerous to the mother and child.
There is evidence that obstetric interventions in labour tend to lead from one to another. Women who have labour induced need more help with pain relief, epidurals lead to more instrumental births… [Johanson & Newburn, 2001, 1143]
The word intervention is used in the medical literature to describe a seemingly harmless approach to help the mother cope with her delivery. However, the medical definition of intervention clearly states what the true intent is:
Intervention: the act or fact of interfering with a condition to modify it or with a process to change its course… (italics added) [Webster, 1985, 345]
As chiropractors, we talk about the interference to the transmission of innate forces. As I see it, the traditional obstetric delivery is a perfect example of one type of interference to the mother’s innate abilities to have a natural childbirth. The interference begins with the forced unnatural position of the mother on her back to deliver her child. This leads to further interference of the doctor’s hands now dependent upon using the child’s head as a source of leverage to deliver the shoulders and the rest of the body.
Current acceptable birthing positions, which have a rich history, are widely used by the majority of birthing mothers today. If even briefly investigated, the positions commonly utilized in the birthing process are suspect in terms of effectiveness and safety for mother and child. Dr. Mendelsohn states:
Considering the radical nature of the change from the birthing stool to the supine position, you would assume that it evolved from cautious scientific research. Incredibly, it didn’t. The practice of laying birthing mothers flat on their backs was initiated to satisfy a kinky erotic aberration of France’s Louis XIV.
King Louis, it seems, got his kicks by peering from behind a curtain while his mistresses, of whom there were many, gave birth. He was frustrated because his vision was obstructed when the women were seated on birthing stools. In an inspired moment he used his royal clout to persuade a male midwife to improve his view. A woman was placed on a high, flat table, with her knees up, and King Louis was immensely pleased with the results. [Mendelsohn, 1982, 152-153]
The natural physiological instinct of a woman is to labor and birth in a position where gravity allows for the easiest possible birth. It is not by accident that the birthing mother has an innate desire to position herself in a way that is most advantageous for both of the parties involved. A child in-utero has assumed the head-down position months prior to delivery. During labor this position allows the head to put pressure upon the cervix, stimulating the natural production of prostaglandins and the resultant opening of the cervix. A chain reaction ensues whereby ocytocin is released resulting in normal contractions of the uterus, which in turn pushes the baby down and out of the birth canal. In addition to the head-down position of the infant and the resultant contributions to the birthing process, science has performed studies to determine what the most advantageous position is for delivery.
Way back in 1933 Mengert and Murphy, in an extensive experimental study, recorded intra-abdominal pressure at the height of maximum straining effort during labor. Their research involved more then 1000 observations of women placed in seven postures. They found that the greatest pressure was exerted in the sitting position. … In 1937, another researcher presented x-rays and measurements that indicated that squatting alters the pelvic shape in a way that makes it advantageous for delivery. [Mendelsohn, 1982, 153]
In a letter to the editor of Birth, Dr. Gastaldo sighted references to support this position of a proper birth position:
Practitioners should realize the radiographic evidence that squatting opens the pelvis and actually demonstrates that supine and semirecumbent labor positions tend to close the pelvis, denying the mother and fetus up to 30 percent of pelvic outlet area. [Gastaldo, 1992, 230]
In all of this I ask, what about the child who has to endure possibly the most dangerous journey of his life? How has his life been altered? What has he sacrificed without even knowing it? All because of a societal trend to deliver babies with force.
REFERENCE: http://www.mckillican-chiropractic.com/articleslinks/subluxation-at-birth-the-effect
No comments:
Post a Comment