Well, although there are fractionally more babies requiring phototherapy after birth, the numbers of babies who had clinical jaundice after birth did not differ statistically between the delayed cord clamping babies and the immediately clamped babies, according to this review of the literature: (scroll down to page 7, see clinical jaundice)
Some concern has been shown for premature babies having delayed cord clamping because the increase in red blood cells obviously causes an increase in bilirubin, but even research on that has come out saying that there are many benefits to delayed cord clamping for the pre-term infant:
The whole picture must also be looked at. Did the mother have pitocin? These days many hospitals give it as standard, particularly if the mother isn't following the 1cm per hour hospital model for birth, but neonatal jaundice is a recognised and listed side-effect of pitocin:
http://www.rxlist.com/pitocin-drug.htm
Go to side-effects and it's there.
Obviously this drug will get through the placenta and if the baby has his own blood reinfused in delayed cord clamping, he may possibly get more of the drug, too.
It would be very interesting to see what the overall results were if they studied delayed cord clamping in naturally born, unmedicated babies.
I have had five children, the last two were born at home with no drugs and I did delayed cord clamping with both. My daughter stayed attached for an hour, my son for about 20 minutes when it all 'died' and came away anyway. Both are extremely healthy and never had any jaundice.
One of my daughter's whom I had in hospital had her cord cut BEFORE birth as it was round the neck. She came out grey and not very responsive, was slow at reaching milestones and is now learning disabled. I wonder if she would have been if she could have had the benefit of her own blood?
I know that's classed as 'anecdotal' but I thought I'd share my experience.
Comment Reply
Well, although there are fractionally more babies requiring phototherapy after birth, the numbers of babies who had clinical jaundice after birth did not differ statistically between the delayed cord clamping babies and the immediately clamped babies, according to this review of the literature: (scroll down to page 7, see clinical jaundice)
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/homepages/106568753/CD004074.pdf
Some concern has been shown for premature babies having delayed cord clamping because the increase in red blood cells obviously causes an increase in bilirubin, but even research on that has come out saying that there are many benefits to delayed cord clamping for the pre-term infant:
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/306/6871/172
The whole picture must also be looked at. Did the mother have pitocin? These days many hospitals give it as standard, particularly if the mother isn't following the 1cm per hour hospital model for birth, but neonatal jaundice is a recognised and listed side-effect of pitocin:
http://www.rxlist.com/pitocin-drug.htm
Go to side-effects and it's there.
Obviously this drug will get through the placenta and if the baby has his own blood reinfused in delayed cord clamping, he may possibly get more of the drug, too.
It would be very interesting to see what the overall results were if they studied delayed cord clamping in naturally born, unmedicated babies.
I have had five children, the last two were born at home with no drugs and I did delayed cord clamping with both. My daughter stayed attached for an hour, my son for about 20 minutes when it all 'died' and came away anyway. Both are extremely healthy and never had any jaundice.
One of my daughter's whom I had in hospital had her cord cut BEFORE birth as it was round the neck. She came out grey and not very responsive, was slow at reaching milestones and is now learning disabled. I wonder if she would have been if she could have had the benefit of her own blood?
I know that's classed as 'anecdotal' but I thought I'd share my experience.
June 28, 2010 - 1:29pmThis Comment
Reply