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)

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

Here is a link to:

Step 6: Does Not Routinely Employ Practices, Procedures Unsupported by Scientific Evidence

the appropriate paper in "Evidence Basis for the Ten Steps to Mother-Friendly Care," a review of the literature supporting the Mother-Friendly Childbirth Initiative's "Ten Steps." You can download it for free. You will find what you need in the sections on IVs and oral intake.

Enjoy!

-- Henci