| Author |
Messages |
|
sfstarbaby@yahoo.com (guest)
 |
| 10/08/2008 11:22 PM |
 Quote
 Reply
|
| I've heard (and know round-about through studies on homebirth) that outcomes are
comparable for low-risk women who routinely have an IV or lock vs. women who had
neither an IV nor a lock. I'm having a lot of trouble finding this anywhere
(online and in books like yours and The Birth Partner). I'm finding a lot about
the cons of and scienific support against fluids themselves, and asking for a
lock as a "compromise" ("just in case of emergency") to getting fluids. But not
a single one about the safety of going without either fluids or the lock. I'm
really hoping you can help me find what I know is out there somewhere.
Respectfully,
Pamela Star (called Star by friends) |
|
|
|
|
NewMoonBirth (guest)
|
| 10/09/2008 12:41 AM |
Quote
Reply
|
I am not sure of all the studies behind this, and need more time to look thoroughly, but check out the sources behind one of the six care practices of Lamaze, no routine interventions. they have several references to iv fluids, and a final comment about the placement of ivs.
http://www.lamaze.org/ChildbirthEducators/ResourcesforEducators/CarePracticePapers/NoRoutineInterventions/tabid/483/Default.aspx
Hope this helps, or at least points you in the right direction!
Sharon
|
|
|
|
|
Henci Goer
Posts:0
|
|
|