An American mum was reportedly forced to fire her obstetrician mid-contraction because he refused to implement an increasingly popular technique known as delayed cord clamping.
Taylor Parsons’ mother, Michelle Parsons, recounted the stressful birth via Facebook, saying her daughter opted to deliver her own baby rather than deviate from her birth plan.
“This guy was stunned when Taylor told him to step back as she squatted on the labour bed and delivered her own son in full caul [in the amniotic sac],” the Nevada woman wrote. “It was a beautiful sight to behold!”
Of course, this is not exactly advisable delivery room behaviour. But more and more research is indeed finding benefits to delayed clamping.
While in many cases, a child’s umbilical cord is clamped within 15 to 20 seconds after birth, a growing number of health professionals are delaying the process – some by up to three minutes.
The technique, known as delayed cord clamping, allows up to 80-100 millilitres of blood to flow into the infant’s body, which advocates say improves health and nutrition outcomes. The key benefits identified by researchers include increased haemoglobin levels at birth and improved iron stores for the first several months (which, in turn, can impact cognitive, motor and behavioural development).
Among the high-profile supporters of delayed clamping is the The World Health Organisaiton, which recommends the umbilical cord be clamped at no less than one minute after birth to help prevent the infant from developing iron deficiency and to reduce risk of postpartum haemorrhage.
The shift toward delayed clamping as standard practice began a little over a decade ago, led by a British midwife named Amanda Burleigh.
“I began to question why we were trained to cut the umbilical cord immediately after a baby was born,” she told CNN. “I then started to explore my theory that there must be a link to a child’s health based on when the cord is cut.”
Recent studies have supported Burleigh’s idea, especially in relation to pre-term births.
Listen for more birth stories. Post continues below.
In November, a team from The University of Sydney released “clear evidence” that waiting just 60 seconds before clamping a pre-term baby’s umbilical cord reduced the risk of death by one third. Their findings came via a review of 18 trials involving 3000 babies born before 37 weeks’ gestation.
“We estimate that for every thousand very preterm babies born more than ten weeks early, delayed clamping will save up to 100 additional lives compared with immediate clamping,” said lead author and Royal Prince Alfred Hospital neonatal specialist, Associate Professor David Osborn.
“This means that, worldwide, using delayed clamping instead of immediate clamping can be expected to save between 11,000 and 100,000 additional lives every year.”
Why it works is still unclear, as University of Sydney researcher Jonathan Morris told ABC: “It may be that the baby has more time to adapt itself… Is it because there is extra blood in the baby’s system? Or possibly, it’s affecting the baby’s resistance to infection because of an added transfusion of white blood cells.”
Anyone who is considering the procedure is urged to consult their doctor.
Top Comments
It's very important to note that in pre-term births, a lot of risk is often going on for mother and baby, and the delivery is quite often an emergency c-section.
Let me share my recent experience.
In an ideal world, I'd planned for DCC a my first (doula-attended) birth. Instead, after a smooth pregnancy, at almost 26 weeks I suddenly developed very severe pre-eclampsia with a tiny baby just 663gms at birth.
Thankfully I was in good hands, but my baby needed to be delivered and treated ASAP to save his life with a dedicated team of the best neonatologists in this city.
He was born with an inaudible heartbeat. But thanks to the work of his team, he made it.
He is now 13 months old (10 corrected) and kicking it in the D!
Sure, DCC would have been nice, but I'd hardly have insisted / argued under the circumstances. In the situation in my mind, I put survival of both of us at the very top of my priority list, and all else fell away.
I was also grateful for having had two days for me to have steroid shots to give his lungs a boost before delivery, as well as not having to have my c-section under general anaesthetic (I have met other prem mums this happened to - they were asleep, and their partner wasn’t in the room, I think some mums met their baby the next day!).
The next priority was my recovery, and his very long journey through NICU (over 250 days, which is unusual). He was given extra haemoglobins through several blood transfusions in the first few months (very common in premature babies, especially micro-prems, we had no idea about that until the day before the first one), and has been on liquid iron since very early on. It’s not ideal, but frankly not a big deal in comparison to everything else he's been through. No regrets.
I have no kids and I'm a guy, so my experience here is obviously non-existent, I'm still curious though about the consultation process that occurs rather than the medical pros or cons.
If it is that important to you, isn't this the sort of discussion regarding treatment from your obstetrician in the months leading up to the birth? Then you have the chance to change your Doctor if you disagree with their view.
There may be other obstetricians involved eg in emergency situations, but the article specifically stipulates "my obstetrician" and I thought this matter would have been raised and resolved long before delivery.
It sounds like it was the I call OB. Sometimes you just get whomever is on, not the OB who has been “yours”. You then get what you get as this person did and have to try and match wants and needs and desires. It doesn’t always go well.