Talk:Umbilical cord

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Restructuring and article split

I have restructured the page so that an explicit division is made between the physiology of the cord, and obstetric procedures relating to the cord. (The previous article lurched back and forth between these topics, with little overall structure, and substantial repetition.) I have tried to do this with the removal of as little content as possible.

With regard to the NPOV dispute, I have created a descriptive section ("Clamping and cutting") describing conventional cord-cutting procedure, followed by the "Nonseverance procedures" section which mentions the criticism of cord-cutting. I hope that this will be to everyone's satisfaction. Unfortunately, the controversial (to put it mildly) "Harvesting of cord blood" section still remains. I was tempted to delete it, but I also feel that if handled correctly (i.e. without hysterical denunciation of capitalism and Western medicine) it could be an informative article, which should have a page of its own. Therefore, I have moved the NPOV message to the head of this section, and recommended an article split. Hyperdeath (talk) 20:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


I have trawled through the archives, and have discovered that the "Harvesting of cord blood" section was once reasonable, but in October 2007 started to deteriorate (to put it mildly). Therefore I have restored the 7th October 2007 version of the text. (IMHO, this was fair to both sides, and only later got hijacked by zealots.) I have also removed my earlier "split section" suggestion. I have retained the NPOV tag, but I will remove it in a week if there are no objections. Hyperdeath (talk) 23:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


There have been no objections raised, and so I have removed the NPOV tag from the "Harvesting of cord blood" subsection. (I also replaced the word "Others..." with "Some parents...", to make the context slightly clearer). Hyperdeath (talk) 20:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Non-encyclopedic

This is a page about the umbilical cord, not about current controversies in obstetrics. The very fact that all this discussion is here shows that it has no place on Wikipedia. If there is a real controversy, that extends beyond internet nutjobs, then a page on the controversy should be created, citing published sources about the controversy, and a link made from here to there. The fact that this page is about 2/3 bashing of current medical practice shows that someone has too much time on her hands. More importantly, it detracts from the primary purpose of the article, which is to inform about the umbilical cord and any directly related medical topics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevinpet (talk • contribs) 04:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cutting

This page regarding the umbilical cord should take in the rights of the mother and father being educated that no clamping or cutting of the cord need be done at all. ONLY if the umbilical cord tore or for placenta previa need a cord be clamped for the emergency protection to the child. The reasons a cord may tear is if the child was dropped. The reason a placenta previa caused the need of the cord clamped is a surgical error of a knife going into the placenta or the cord.

The baby has only about an ounce more blood then his/her weight at the time born. For example a 9-pound infant only creates 10 ounces of blood (300 ml). To clamp the umbilical cord early to take away the rights of the infant of the nutrients of the placenta blood, is to violate equal security to the child. It is also a criminal offense against the person, and requires equal protection of the criminal laws of every nation.

The child, may live, after the assault. But as a impaired and compromised child with lower immunities, and anemic. The child will have a lower IQ with learning disadvantages and lower opportunities in the field of competitions.

The child will take from 6 weeks to 6 months to recreate the deprived blood. The child may never ever catch up from being anemic as he / she is constantly growing.

The internal increase of autism, holes in the heart, stroke, heart attacks can all be related to the original cause hasty umbilical cord clamping.

Autism: In the 1970's, there were 1 in 30,000 children with Autism, today, the children under 11 years of age are 1 in 110. All will be found to have been deprived 20 to 50 percent total blood volume by being harvested of their placenta blood.

The hospitals and their staff and policies have being doing this early clamping and taking the palcenta and placenta blood in secret every since they got women to birth in insitutions. Why? The medical fields need blood for consumer products and their services in operations and transplants. It is political. It creates billions in medical services and higher costs. The USA baby business needlessly costs $20 billion for 4 million babies. But the babies should not be picked on. The STRONG DO NOT PICK ON THE WEAK.

The babies are vulnerable by age, sex, color, race, or mental or physical disadvantages. The babies are not able to give informed consent to donate blood, they are not over age 17, and are not 110 pounds and known to be in good health. The babies owe no duty to cure the sick, they did not cause another's disorder. Leave them alone. The duty of society is to protect the child.

See a medical point of view at: www.cordclamping.com and a demonstration at a autism conference in November 2002.

The pioneers and many in developing lands practiced or still practice primal birth care and treatment, leaving the cord alone, as what I call left intact to keep the child a biological reciprocal sealed unit. This method of care and protection to the child (no cord infections, no hernias, the baby strong with all their blood),is no longer called primal birth, but is now known as the Lotus Birth.

This name was given in honour of Clare Lotus Day, who watched the monkeys, who did not tear off the placenta and cord, but let it dangle until it fell off in a day or two. She too wanted her child's cord left intact, and birthed as in a primal birth in a San Francisco hospital. She has recently died and her Lotus Birth Child, but the name primal birth is given a more pleasant name.

For more information of rights to the mothers to have a primal birth, in a home birth or hospital, please visit www.lotusbirth.com

Sincerely, Donna Young Natural Birth Education Box 504 Dawson Creek, BC V1G 4H4 Canada tel/fax: 1-250-782-9223 email: dyoung@pris.ca

  • If you would like to contribute to the article, please read about NPOV. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. - Nunh-huh 06:19, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)


On a side note, I was recently informed that, at least overhere in the Netherlands, it's common practice to wait with clamping until (most of) the blood has receded into the newborn baby, unless, of course, there is a medical indication for clamping earlier, so I personally doubt the benefit of keeping the umbilical cord attached to the placenta has such benefits as claimed. On top of that, I really doubt that animals in the wild keep the entire placenta attached, since it wouldn't be very practical to carry around. In the births I've witnessed, the mother bit through the cord, and then proceded to eat the placenta (yes, herbivores do so too) helped by the rest of the pack/herd/troop.
But anyway, the article already references the article on Lotus Birth and, while that article could use some cleaning as well since it carries on to talk about uses for the placenta, I think that this information belongs there more than here.

[edit] Genetics

Am I correct in understanding that the umbilical cord contain's the child's DNA rather than the mother's? Nik42 04:56, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

AFAIK, the answer is yes, it's the child's genetic material in the cord. Alex.tan 04:22, 20 September 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Image

I removed the image, as it is a highly graphic one that quite frankly shouldn't be so hugely prominent on the page anyhow.

I reinserted the image. I don't think it's too "graphic" for this article. I did, however, reduce the size a little. Alex.tan 10:11, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
Please remove it, the first image is too strong, wikipedia is not shownomercy.com, so please. --Shandris 12:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, the image may be to graphic for the article. Removed link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ohnoitsjamie (talk • contribs)

I think the image is perfect because it shows how aggressive western obsterics are in cutting the cord. It is barbaric and damaging the brains of so many people. Template:Areseepee

Oohh evil westerners and their dogma medecine. Quit your xenophobic bullshit, please. I don't mind the picture, even though kids would probably be a bit shocked if they saw it (but then, maybe they wouldn't check this page anyway). Damaging the brains? Bah! The irony is killing me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.189.107.169 (talk) 12:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The picture is horrific. It looks like an anus defecating. --81.1.103.73 (talk) 18:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] and then what?

I've been trying to find out what happens to the cord after it is removed, something which, amazingly, I can't find on the interent. Do they put into the bin, given to medical student or what? This is probably an obvious question, but I think that there should be a note on this page about it for completeness and clarity. Sdrawkcab 18:59, 26 November 2005 (UTC)sdrawkcab

There is mention of this in the Lotus Birth and Childbirth articles. Jay 09:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Once the placenta has been delivered and the neonate has been separated from it, the placenta and cord are examined by the midwife or obstetrician. They are looking to check that there are 3 vessels within the cord, that the membranes are intact and there are not pieces missing and that there are no large section of placenta missing. If there is a stillbirth or major congenital abnormalities the placenta and cord are sent to be examined by a pathologist. If there are no problems with the placenta and cord, the mother is asked if she wishes to keep it (as this is in keeping with some cultures) and if not it is discarded in medical waste.

[edit] Pain and blood loss

Discussion copied from Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science. Jay 12:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Is cutting the umbilical cord painful to the newborn and/or mother ? Does it result in blood loss ? How do all other mammals cut the cord and how do they manage to control the blood loss ? Jay 12:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

See parturition. The umbilical cord is made of Wharton's jelly, not ordinary skin and connective tissue. There are no nerves, so cutting it is not painful. There is ordinarily no significant loss of either infant or maternal blood unless something goes wrong. I am not certain of the range of variations of placental and cord structure in most other mammals, but suspect that it either shrivels and falls off (like the stump of umbilical cord of a human baby) or is consumed by the mother (which recycles the protein, and reduces tissue that would attract scavengers or predators). alteripse 15:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
For animals: the mother bites the cord apart, and it dies and falls off after a short while.


[edit] Make up and Composition

Could we have some cites in this section? Particularly, I'd be interested in which the medical texts call arteries and veins, since I'd imagine it would depend on whether you viewed it from the mother's or the baby's point of view. Thanks. Skittle 14:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Historical treatment

Is anyone able to info on what was done with the umbilical cord historically? Pontificake 21:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


This article is actually incorrect in its description of umbilical arteries and veins. The cord contains 2 arteries. These remove blood from the fetus return it to the placenta. There is one umbilical vein and this brings blood from the placenta and delivers it to the fetus (this is oxygen and nutrient rich blood). The article says the opposite thing.

[edit] Embryonic Attachment

Why does this article not go into detail where the umbilical cord connects to the various locations inside the fetus?


Wikimike 23:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


I had the same question and went straight to Wikipedia to get a good answer. I'm surprised at the poor quality of this article when it comes to answering the basic question of what is an umbilical cord and how it works. But its a great NPOV article against early clamping... 66.214.187.229 (talk) 03:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


I have added a (very brief) section on the attachment of the cord to the fetal circulatory system. (I, like you, came to this article with the very same question.) I am not an expert on human anatomy, and I would appreciate it if someone with greater expertise would check this section for accuracy. Hyperdeath (talk) 22:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Studies

New study in the British Medical Journal reports that delayed cord clamping is beneficial and early clamping is harmful. Early cord clamping needs to be banned but the word is not getting out fast enough! http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/08/17/ncord117.xml areseepee 22 Aug 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References

I fixed the format of the existing references and added one more. The article still needs more. Also did some minor copy-editing. Flyguy649talkcontribs 05:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

My mistake for the copyright error. Just would like to see more information/studies on the main page on harmful practice of early cord clamping. areseepee 22 Aug 2007 (UTC)

[edit] {{POV}}

The part of the article, dealing with Cord Blood Banking practice is rather controversial. Check for neutrality needed!

The banking comment is very controversial. In fact, much of cord banking is for donation purposes. Stem cells harvested from umbillical cords is a valuable source for augmenting the National Marrow Donor Program. This comment needs to be included along with the very stilted "thou shall not harm thy baby by selling its umbillical cord" diatribe —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.9.22.63 (talk) 06:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed article split

To my way of thinking, the controversies over cord blood harvesting and delayed clamping need their own article(s) and merit only a very brief mention and link in this one. This article should contain more basic information about the structure and function of the cord and less about the comparative health risks and benefits that procedures performed on the cord incur to a child. That stuff just seems to be drifting off-topic. --SierraSciSPA (talk) 18:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


I completely agree. The clamping and blood-harvesting controversies are perfectly legitimate topics, but they must be placed elsewhere. Therefore, I have added a "It has been suggested that this section be split into a new article" message to the "Cord Blood" subsection. Hyperdeath (talk) 21:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Umbilical artery and vein

Is this article correct when it says that the umbilical vein supplies oxygenated blood and the artery removes deoxygenated blood? I thought that it would've been the artery that carried the oxygenated blood to the fetus and the vein that removed it. I could be easily wrong but I just wanted to verify. Rajrajmarley (talk) 01:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

It is correct. The difference between a vein and an artery is defined by the direction of blood flow, rather than the type of blood carried. The umbilical arteries carry blood away from the fetus's heart, hence their name. Hyperdeath (talk) 22:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

An anonymous user just edited the article to reverse the vein/artery labels. I have reverted these changes Please note that the current article is correct in saying that the vein carries oxygenated blood. Hyperdeath (talk) 20:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Childbirth photo

I notice that an anonymous user has removed the childbirth picture [[1]] from the gallery. No explanation was given, although I am probably correct in saying that the remover thought it to be "obscene".

However, Wikipedia is not censored. The Wikipedia:Profanity policy states that:

...images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if they are informative, relevant and accurate...

With respect to these three conditions, the image is:

  • Informative: It clearly depicts the umbilical cord, and shows what it looks like in the context of childbirth.
  • Relevant: The article describes obstetric procedures relating to the umbilical cord. Therefore, a childbirth picture which shows the cord is highly relevant.
  • Accurate: There is nothing to suggest that the photograph is anything other than an accurate and unaltered depiction of a real event.

For these reasons, I believe that the image should be included.

Hyperdeath (talk) 18:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


I have now restored the image. Hyperdeath (talk) 18:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe the picture in question was the one I just removed. It did not show the umbilical cord at all, therefore, it was not informative or relevant. I think I replaced it with a much better picture, though. 75.7.33.19 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 00:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


The photo did show the umbilical cord, and I believe it was appropriate. However, I concede that the new image gives a better view of the cord, and is a suitable replacement. Hyperdeath (talk) 18:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I restored the neonatal picture from the gallery [[2]] which anonymous took down, citing obscenity, however, birth is not obscene, and this is a respectful photo that definitely qualifies as informative for the umbilical cord as a transitional yet integral and intact part of the neonate. --KellyPhD (talk) 04:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)KellyPhD

[edit] Top of page image

I notice that KellyPhD Has replaced the top of page image Umbilicalcord.jpg[[3]] with Normal_Childbirth.jpg[[4]]. This new image is completely unsuitable for the following reasons:

  • It barely shows the cord. I can see a vague line that may possibly be the cord, but could equally be a ripple on the water.
  • The image has been photoshopped for artistic reasons (with the baby depicted in colour and the rest of the frame in black and white). Given that the article is about the cord (and not about new-born babies per se), this form of highlighting is completely inappropriate.

On the other hand, the previous image shows an excellent view of the cord. If you do not like this image, please explain why. Hyperdeath (talk) 13:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

  • The cord IS part of the newborn baby, composed of the same cells of conception, and it is often connected between the neonate and the mother for a few minutes, until the placenta is delivered. The current image on this page is not the best because it objectifies the newborn's umbilical cord - within moments after birth - as merely something to be clamped upon a solitary neonate rather than an active player in birth and the early neonatal period.
  • Current reformed hospital birth protocols treat the mother and newborn as one entity, with the healthy newborn being "in-arms" with its mother. To the obstetric context of the 21st century, the anonymous, solitary neonate cameo is rather morbid without the mother... and in the very least belongs elsewhere on the page, rather than as the lead photo.
  • Agreed that the previous Wiki commons photo has that photoshopped problem, but so is this one, for other reasons. Last year there was a great birth photo of a post-birth mother & child with attached cord, but someone removed it because of nudity? There are also some photos that depict very distraught neonates, receiving immediate cord clamping with no mother in sight, as if they are having emergency surgery rather than a gentle birth. Why not have a mixture of photos? --KellyPhD (talk) 04:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)KellyPhD


This page isn't about childbirth. This page isn't about babies. This page isn't about mothers. This page is about the umbilical cord. Everything else is tangential, and should be discussed elsewhere. It doesn't matter if the baby, mother and cord are "one entity", as this article (by its very title) concerns the cord only. Showing the cord without the mother is no more "morbid" than displaying someone's face without including the rest of their body.

The articles on ears, noses, elbows, mouths, fingers all start with close-up photos of the respective body-parts. Do these photos "objectify" the parts is question? Umbilicalcord.jpg is the most informative image (as it gives by far the best view of the cord), and in an encyclopedia, this is all that matters.

Hyperdeath (talk) 18:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


I have moved LaVergerrayCherie-birth.jpg back down into the image gallery. Hyperdeath (talk) 18:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Historical context of protocols section

I have removed the "Historical context of protocols section" for the following reasons:

  • It promotes a single point of view (and does little else).
  • A single quote cannot set a "historical context". (By all means write a history of procedures relating to the umbilical cord, but it must draw from multiple sources and multiple viewpoints.)
  • It is essentially a copy of a primary source. Such a quote may find a place in a larger section, but it cannot be the section. (For quotations on their own, use Wikiquote rather than Wikipedia).

Hyperdeath (talk) 21:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)