Re: [ozmidwifery] waterbirth pictures

[Marilyn Kleidon]

I do know at least one baby died in Oregon about 10 years ago now(stayed under longer than 6 min but not sure how long), must have made a lot of people rethink the practice because not one parent in the waterbirths that I attended in USA even mentioned not bringing the baby up straight away. I did notice in California one midwife liked to bring the baby up with the head down ie the bum up first, in Seattle, I or the mum/dad brought the baby up face first. Actually with the babies I worked with it never made a difference but I felt more comfortable face first.   marilyn ----- Original Message ----- From: Mary Murphy To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 17, 2003 5:29 PM Subject: Re: [ozmidwifery] waterbirth pictures I have no idea what the rationale of leaving the baby underwater is.  When I attended  my first waterbirth in 1987, the parents left the baby under for 6 mins.  I wasn't happy, but the baby was and still is, alright.  It seemed to be a "California" thing to make the transition more "gentle", physiology doesn't support the practice.  The only strp B pamphlets I have are the American ones.  The figures seem massive because of their larger population.  I too would be interested in an Australian one.  MM ----- Original Message ----- From: Ross W Timbs To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 17, 2003 9:03 PM Subject: [ozmidwifery] waterbirth pictures Can anyone enlighten me on the rationale / motivation for holding the baby under the water after it is born?   Also does anyone have any good client information pamphlets on group B strep that they would like to share?   Thanks in advance   Jacky