Talk:Lotus birth

Google search
Google returns over 1,500 hits for "Lotus Birth". There are even books about Lotus Birth, i.e. ISBN 0646406523 (Search Amazon or Campusi). Whether or not Lotus Birth has a medical term, it's hard to say the factuality that this happens or has happened can be brought into question. I think it's fair to say that if someone can think of a birth ritual that is documented or mentioned in thousands of places, then it's happened somewhere and is therefore factual. Removing dispute-of-factuality notice. Ayeroxor 20:15, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)


 * I have to partly agree with Joseph regarding this article. The claims made below are unreferenced and read a bit like "Acme's Patent Medicine - Everything healed and wait there's more!" Such significant claims for the efficacy of lotus birth requires significant evidence. However, with regards to Joseph's scepticism about the existence of Lotus Birth, I can say that it is reasonably common within the homebirth movement in Australia. Either way, before any of the material below can go back, it needs more evidence.--Maustrauser 4 July 2005 12:46 (UTC)

Hardly quackery! Show me the (credible) research on cord clamping/cord cutting! If you can find any... It is a bit like circumcision; it was considered "necessary" based on custom instead of research. With respect to the claims listed below, I understand a certain reluctance to believe some of them, but "reduced risk of infection" seems like a gimme (if you don't have a gaping wound, bad bugs are less likely to get in) and increased blood volume, also a gimme (logically, if they can bank the blood, there must still be blood in there, right?). As much as we are inclined to believe that what we saw last night on ER is the way things should be, that isn't always the case. No other mammal clamps their umbilical cords... They can't all be nuts, can they? csp


 * Er, surely you're kidding. Nearly all other mammals bite their umbilical cords and eat the placenta immediately after the birth, not leave it attached to the newborn. Would you prefer to advocate that just because 'other mammals do it'?
 * "Lotus birth reduces the risk of infection as there is no open wound."- Surely a claim like this warrants a reference to a reputable study?;
 * "Some people like the child to have the placenta so that it can be buried with the child at the end of his or her life"- Who are these 'some people'?;
 * "Although it is common practice to clamp and cut the cord as soon as the baby is born there is little research to support this practice"- aside from extremely low maternal and newborn death rates in developed countries that practice this under modern, hygenic conditions of course. More to the point, where is any evidence against the prevailing practice? Gamsarah 13:22, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the term Lotus Birth is non-medical and should be cross-referenced to Umbilical Nonseverance. Chromosomally speaking, we need only be concerned with the chimpanzees, with whom we share the most genetic links, and who represent the most advanced form of mammal in their linguistic and social intelligence. These mammals have leave their newborns intact, in all ways. In dry savannah conditions, the infant's cord dries and separates within a day. ***Also, the data on newborn health in the US is actually grim: the US is 27th on the WHO's list low infant mortality rates. Maternal deaths of prenatally healthy women, generally iatrogenic in origin, are statistically vastly underreported as such (to the benefit of hospital administrators) as they are generally recorded under "Anesthesiology" rather than "Labor and Delivery." It does not take an advanced degree to understand that a discussion of this topic requires an inter-disciplinary approach. KellyPhD 18:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)KellyPhD


 * I am in agreement with KellyPhD with reference to the use of a non-medical term in addition to a medical one. Although a medical term is in existence (Umbilical Nonseverence), referring to child birth as a medical practice must surely be noted as in dispute. Birth is no more a medical practice than "ageing", "digestion" or the usual "development" of neonate to young adult. The fact that medical intervention may be necessary or "usually practised" does indicate that a process is, by nature, a medical one. The existence of Lotus Birth cannot be questioned as the process is widely documented with first hand experience in addition to the historical texts already mentioned. I understand that there is pressure to note that this process is controversial but then the same must be said of ANY "medical" practise from the surgical removal of a tumour to the usual treatment of symptoms rather than causes. The advocacy of "modern, hygenic conditions" by Gamsarah indicates that this is a desired condition and does not address the accompanying drop in human immunity, the proliferation of resistant strains or the management of instinctive maternal acts. Rufus Duffin (talk) 14:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I would add that this subject is about human culture around a physiological process, and the page explains anthropological and primatological criticims on typical medical intervention of newborn physiology. Simply put, this may be news to some of us, but considering the interdisciplinary conversation out there, it is short-sighted and even ignorant to pidgeonhole this umbilical care option as mere controversy simply because it is surprising information to some. This is supposed to be the talk page for discussing improvements to the Lotus birth article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.--KellyPhD (talk) 07:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC) Kelly Ph.D


 * I fully agree with Kelly's view. We get many reports of this practice among homebirthers in France. None of them claims that it is medically beneficial! Their initial motivation came from the question: is it at all necessary to cut the umbilical chord? Which may be a stressing one when no doc or midwife is around… So the general turn of mind is: why do more if it is doesn't prove necessary beneficial? This article should therefore document historical/cultural aspects of this practice in the broadest manner. Leave out the medical stuff (or treat it as part of the folklore) because childbirth is a social fact, not a medical act! -- Bernard Bel (talk)

I have a couple of issues with this article. 1, using primates (who's young very VERY frequently die in childbirth or directly thereafter) as a positive example is not good. 2, it is stated that the placenta detaches due to necrosis. . . that's bad. . .very bad, look a baby (read weak immune system) being attached to a tissue undergoing necrosis introduces all kinds of risks of infection and sepsis as well as adding the risk of a thrown clot into the baby's bloodstream. This procedure should not be recommended for medical merits unless someone is willing to edit for potential medical risk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.114.36.110 (talk) 09:13, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Benefits of Lotus Birth

 * completely natural, intervention free childbirth.


 * baby receives full benefits from the placental blood including platelets that clot the blood, plasma (proteins of the blood), white cells to fight infections, red cells that have iron and carry oxygen to all cells, stem cells that replace worn out cells, hormones and enzymes and iron reserves.


 * less Respiratory Distress Syndrome (RDS), especially in premature infants.


 * less chance of infant brain damage (i.e., cerebral palsy, autism, schizophrenia).


 * more maternal antibodies received by infant.


 * higher infant blood pressure.


 * less need for blood transfusions for premature infants.


 * less chance of organ damage from schema in premature babies.


 * improved infant renal (kidney) function.


 * the baby is spared of unnecessary risks of cord infection.


 * the umbilicus heals faster than a cut cord.


 * improved breastfeeding success rate.


 * lower medical bills, especially for premature babies

(This bullet list was unsigned. The commentary from me, Triangular, starts here) Where's this information from? Especially, what's your source for schizophrenia being caused by infant brain damage? A diagnosis of schizophrenia generally requires typical development up through at least adolescence. As far as I know, there aren't any types of birth trauma that wait 10+ years to show up. I've not seen any literature exploring a link between birth trauma and schizophrenia. Triangular 22:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Just because YOU haven't seen the literature does not mean it's not out there. See the work of Adrian Raine D. Phil., Patricia Brennan, Ph.D., and Sarnoff A. Mednick, Ph.D. in the American Journal of Psychiatry, as well as the Journal of Pre & Perinatal Psychology. I will add a link to the main page. --KellyPhD (talk) 07:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)Kelly Phd

Why are you citing PHDs and not MDs? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.114.36.110 (talk) 09:15, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Treatment of the placenta after the third stage of labour.

 * the placenta is inspected as usual to check that is it intact.


 * care must be taken to keep the placenta fairly level with the baby until the Wharton's jelly has solidified, hence no more blood transfusion is occurring. This occurs several minutes after the cord has stopped pulsing.


 * the placenta is either rinsed in warm water and gently wrapped in layered cloths, or kept in a sieve over a bowl kept next to the baby up to 24 hours before being wrapped.


 * at this stage the placenta can be left but is usually salted daily to improve the drying process and wrapped in a placenta cloth. Sometimes essential oils, dried flowers or powdered spices can also be applied for preservation. The placenta may be kept in a placenta bag made especially for the purpose.


 * the placenta will become drier, smaller and lighter every day and the cord will become brittle until it falls off naturally.


 * the dried placenta can be kept, buried under a tree or powdered and encapsulated for postpartum nutritional Chinese medicine. If buried as fertilizer for a young tree, the placenta should have minimal or no salt treatment to avoid burning the roots.

Here is some medical information about the benefits of delayed cord cutting, which is one of the ideas behind the Lotus Birth. Chimpanzees do not chew off the cord. You'll understand this next question after you read the articles from the medical journals: If 1 or 3 minutes of delayed cord cutting is beneficial to the baby, but not to the extent of giving the baby the normal amount of blood the baby is ALREADY used to, why would it not be good to keep them attached to THEIR placenta until it falls off naturally.

1: Wien Klin Wochenschr. 1985 May 24;97(11):497-500. Links [Early or late cord clamping? A question of optimal time] [Article in German] •	Hohmann M. Late cord clamping allows a redistribution of placental blood to the fetus within 3 minutes. A sufficient difference in hydrostatic pressure between placenta and fetus is the prerequisite for placental transfusion. Placental transfusion is reduced or diminished if the newborn baby is positioned above the placenta. Blood volume and blood pressure of the fetus are elevated after placental transfusion. The increased blood volume correlates with the effective renal blood flow. There is no difference between cardiovascular parameters 6 hours post partum in infants subjected to early or late clamping of the cord. Nevertheless, erythrocyte volume and oxygen capacity remain high during the first days of life in infants with late cord clamping. Conclusion: In normal deliveries the cord should be clamped after 1 to 2 minutes. In premature infants, however, placental transfusion is advantageous because the incidence of respiratory distress syndrome is lower with late clamping. If the fetus is hypoxic in utero, redistribution of the blood and placental transfusion takes place already before birth to improve the oxygen supply to the fetal tissue and resuscitatory measures can be undertaken immediately following birth. PMID: 4013344 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

PEDIATRICS Vol. 117 No. 4 April 2006, pp. 1235-1242 (doi:10.1542/peds.2005-1706)

Delayed Cord Clamping in Very Preterm Infants Reduces the Incidence of Intraventricular Hemorrhage and Late-Onset Sepsis: A Randomized, Controlled Trial Judith S. Mercer, DNSc, CNMa, Betty R. Vohr, MDb, Margaret M. McGrath, DNSca, James F. Padbury, MDb, Michael Wallach, MDb and William Oh, MDb a University of Rhode Island, Kingston, Rhode Island b Brown Medical School, Providence, Rhode Island OBJECTIVE. This study compared the effects of immediate (ICC) and delayed (DCC) cord clamping on very low birth weight (VLBW) infants on 2 primary variables: bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD) and suspected necrotizing enterocolitis (SNEC). Other outcome variables were late-onset sepsis (LOS) and intraventricular hemorrhage (IVH). STUDY DESIGN. This was a randomized, controlled unmasked trial in which women in labor with singleton fetuses <32 weeks’ gestation were randomly assigned to ICC (cord clamped at 5–10 seconds) or DCC (30–45 seconds) groups. Women were excluded for the following reasons: their obstetrician refused to participate, major congenital anomalies, multiple gestations, intent to withhold care, severe maternal illnesses, placenta abruption or previa, or rapid delivery after admission. RESULTS. Seventy-two mother/infant pairs were randomized. Infants in the ICC and DCC groups weighed 1151 and 1175 g, and mean gestational ages were 28.2 and 28.3 weeks, respectively. Analyses revealed no difference in maternal and infant demographic, clinical, and safety variables. There were no differences in the incidence of our primary outcomes (BPD and suspected NEC). However, significant differences were found between the ICC and DCC groups in the rates of IVH and LOS. Two of the 23 male infants in the DCC group had IVH versus 8 of the 19 in the ICC group. No cases of sepsis occurred in the 23 boys in the DCC group, whereas 6 of the 19 boys in the ICC group had confirmed sepsis. There was a trend toward higher initial hematocrit in the infants in the DCC group. CONCLUSIONS. Delayed cord clamping seems to protect VLBW infants from IVH and LOS, especially for male infants.

PEDIATRICS Vol. 117 No. 4 April 2006, pp. e779-e786 (doi:10.1542/peds.2005-1156)

The Effect of Timing of Cord Clamping on Neonatal Venous Hematocrit Values and Clinical Outcome at Term: A Randomized, Controlled Trial José M. Ceriani Cernadas, MDa, Guillermo Carroli, MDb, Liliana Pellegrini, MDc, Lucas Otaño, MDd, Marina Ferreira, MDa, Carolina Ricci, MDa, Ofelia Casas, MDc, Daniel Giordanob and Jaime Lardizábal, MDb a Department of Pediatrics, Division of Neonatology d Division of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Department of Surgery, Hospital Italiano de Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina b Centro Rosarino de Estudios Perinatales, Rosario, Argentina c Division of Neonatology, Department of Pediatrics, Maternidad Martin, Rosario, Argentina BACKGROUND. The umbilical cord is usually clamped immediately after birth. There is no sound evidence to support this approach, which might deprive the newborn of some benefits such as an increase in iron storage. OBJECTIVES. We sought to determine the effect of timing of cord clamping on neonatal venous hematocrit and clinical outcome in term newborns and maternal postpartum hemorrhage. METHODS. This was a randomized, controlled trial performed in 2 obstetrical units in Argentina on neonates born at term without complications to mothers with uneventful pregnancies. After written parental consents were obtained, newborns were randomly assigned to cord clamping within the first 15 seconds (group 1), at 1 minute (group 2), or at 3 minutes (group 3) after birth. The infants' venous hematocrit value was measured 6 hours after birth. RESULTS. Two hundred seventy-six newborns were recruited. Mean venous hematocrit values at 6 hours of life were 53.5% (group 1), 57.0% (group 2), and 59.4% (group 3). Statistical analyses were performed, and results were equivalent among groups because the hematocrit increase in neonates with late clamping was within the prespecified physiologic range. The prevalence of hematocrit at <45% (anemia) was significantly lower in groups 2 and 3 than in group 1. The prevalence of hematocrit at >65% was similar in groups 1 and 2 (4.4% and 5.9%, respectively) but significantly higher in group 3 (14.1%) versus group 1 (4.4%). There were no significant differences in other neonatal outcomes and in maternal postpartum hemorrhage. CONCLUSIONS. Delayed cord clamping at birth increases neonatal mean venous hematocrit within a physiologic range. Neither significant differences nor harmful effects were observed among groups. Furthermore, this intervention seems to reduce the rate of neonatal anemia. This practice has been shown to be safe and should be implemented to increase neonatal iron storage at birth.

PEDIATRICS Vol. 117 No. 1 January 2006, pp. 93-98 (doi:10.1542/peds.2004-1773)

Infants' Blood Volume in a Controlled Trial of Placental Transfusion at Preterm Delivery Narendra Aladangady, MD, MRCPCH (UK)a, Siobhan McHugh, CSat, BSc (Hons)b, Thomas C. Aitchison, CSat, BSc (Hons)b, Charles A. J. Wardrop, FRCPc and Barbara M. Holland, FRCPCHa a Neonatal Unit, The Queen Mother's Hospital, Glasgow, United Kingdom b Department of Statistics, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom c Haematology Department, University of Wales College of Medicine, Cardiff, United Kingdom OBJECTIVE. To investigate whether it was possible to promote placental blood transfer to infants at preterm delivery by (1) delaying cord clamping, (2) holding the infant below the placenta, and (3) administering an oxytocic agent to the mother, we measured the infants' blood volumes. DESIGN. Randomized study. METHODS. Forty-six preterm infants (gestational age: 24[0/7] to 32[6/7] weeks) were assigned randomly to either placental blood transfer promotion (delayed cord clamping [DCC] group, ie, 30 seconds from moment of delivery) or early cord clamping (ECC) with conventional management (ECC group). Eleven of 23 and 9 of 23 infants assigned randomly to DCC and ECC, respectively, were delivered through the vaginal route. The study was conducted at a tertiary perinatal center, the Queen Mother's Hospital (Glasgow, United Kingdom). RESULTS. The infants' mean blood volume in the DCC group (74.4 mL/kg) was significantly greater than that in the ECC group (62.7 mL/kg; 95% confidence interval for advantage: 5.8–17.5). The blood volume was significantly increased by DCC for infants delivered vaginally. The infants in the DCC group delivered through cesarean section had greater blood volumes (mean: 70.4 mL/kg; range: 45–83 mL/kg), compared with the ECC group (mean: 64.0 mL/kg; range: 48–77 mL/kg), but this was not significant. Additional analyses confirmed the effect of DCC (at least 30 seconds) to increase average blood volumes across the full range of gestational ages studied. CONCLUSIONS. The blood volume was, on average, increased in the DCC group after at least a 30-second delay for both vaginal and cesarean deliveries. However, on average, euvolemia was not attained with the third stage management methods outlined above.

euvolemia yū′vō-lē′mē-a The presence of the proper amount of blood in the body. [eu- + L. volumen, volume, + G. haima, blood] http://www.drugs.com/dict/euvolemia.html

www.geocities.com/upholder_of_birth

bias
I'm not debating the merits of this practice. But reading the very first paragraph which uses emotive language (I have added bolding) to present a biased view, "Lotus Birth is the practice of leaving the umbilical cord uncut after childbirth, so that the infant is left attached to its placenta until the cord naturally separates at the umbilicus, generally 1–3 days after birth (as compared to approximately 5-18 minutes when the cord is clamped and medically cut leaving a stump with a plastic clip). This prolonged contact can be seen as a time of transition, allowing the baby to slowly and gently let go of his or her attachment to the mother's body." I have included my proposed change. You will see that I have removed all of the "can be seen as" as it refers to oppinion without reference (ie: stated as fact). Lotus birth could be seen as a lot of things, but this only presents one side of what seems to be a debate. Proposed change: "Lotus Birth is the practice of leaving the umbilical cord intact following birth, until it detaches from naturally from the umbilicus. Detachment usually occurs 1-3 days after birth, whereas in most conventional births, the cord is clamped and cut minutes after birth." Tinkstar1985 13:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Good change. Go for it! Maustrauser 23:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the original article uses emotive language and shows some bias but at the same time, people come to Wikipedia for information not to be told whether something is right or wrong or that there is no evidence for it - if that was the case the page for God could be summed up in one paragraph in a similar fashion "there's no evidence for God, and here's an article to back this up". The original article needs a clean up and can be tagged with '{POV}' and/or '{Disputed}' until such time as it is. The information currently provided belongs under a 'Controversy' or similar section. Additionally, lotus birth does not fall under the WikiProject Medicine scope, but rather Alternative Medicine and should be tagged as such ('{WikiProject Alternative Medicine }') The Thorned Rose (talk) 04:19, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

POV
This article is wildly POV and highly subjective. It employs buzzwords ("gentle" etc.) excessively and completely lacks medical information on risks/benefits associated with the practice. --69.140.153.50 17:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * This article is relatively well researched and does not currently contain many "buzzwords." As it relies on the physiological function of the human body, rather than a medical intervention practice, the risks/benefits question is not a primary concern. Removing POV tag. -- KellyPhD, 01:03 11 January 2008


 * On last review, this page's emotive language has been removed, and sufficient references are present. POV tag being removed, as I see no justification for it at this point. WP: NPOV. As the WHO clarifies, this is about physiology, rather than an intervention upon it. --KellyPhD (talk) 20:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC) KellyPhD


 * The WHO article is given an inappropriate spin in this article - notably, non-clamping and non-severance are exchanged. BTW, you can create a discussion layout using : in front of a paragraph as I did here. Makes discussions more easily readable. --69.140.175.66 (talk) 05:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

IP Vandalism
The address 72.177.62.117 and others have gratitiously removes the POV tag from the article twice without contributing to the POV debate and without making any kind on effort to reduce this article's overwhelming POV inf avour of the practice. This is considered vandalism (see WP:Vandalism) and will not be tolerated. Vandalims warnings were left on the according IP page. If this situation continues, I will request an IP block. --69.140.153.50 (talk) 23:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Ezekiel Reference
The article contains a highly erroneous statement and provides no citation. The paragraph below displays a very obscure interpretation of the passage in Ezekiel, which can easily be shown as erroneous by reading the verse before and after.

Religious Jews and Christians who choose umbilical nonseverance see it relevant to the strength of Ezekiel who was cast out of his tribe but became a divine visionary, or prophet. Ezekiel 16:4 of the Bible, "As for your birth, the day you were born your navel cord was not cut."

The verse before, Ezekiel 16:3, identifies the one born as "Jerusalem"--and most would see Jerusalem in this context as representative of the entire nation of Israel. In the rest of the chapter, it describes the city in terms of a woman who was saved from death as a baby, nurtured through her maturing, and became beautiful, but unfaithful. It is clearly not talking about the prophet Ezekiel, and certainly has nothing to do with his strength.

It is also not true that Ezekiel was cast out of his tribe. Rather, it was the nation of Israel whose life was threatened at birth. This probably refers to Israel's slavery in Egypt and pursuit by Pharaoh into the Red Sea. In the verse following, Ezekiel 16:5, it is clear that all of the descriptions from verse 4, including umbilical nonseverance, are descriptions of a newborn that has been abandoned and not cared for, but rather abhorred. Obviously this would have quite the opposite implication for religious Jews and Christians. This verse would be an argument against Lotus birth, rather than for it.

In light of these things, I do not feel that the paragraph belongs in the article at all, but should be removed. If there are other reasons why religious Jews or Christians opt for Lotus birth, that could be presented with a valid citation or reference.--98.214.67.48 (talk) 03:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Contributors originally had a fair, encyclopedic comment on this verse, but one contributor has continually changed it back to the language mentioned above, despite its being her own unverifiable statement. I agree, leaving it as above is not an option. It is simply a false statement. Just deleting it would be better. --173.15.117.21 (talk) 17:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

pulsating cord
"Immediately postpartum, the umbilical cord pulsates as it transfers blood from the placenta to the baby"

The umbilical cord has two arteries and one vein. The arteries transfer the blood from the baby to the placenta and pulsate, as they are connected to the babies aorta via the internal iliac arteries. The vein transports the blood from the placenta to the baby, but does not pulsate, as there is no pumping mechanism in the placenta and pressure is not transmitted past the capillary placental bed. Therefore, the umbilical cord pulsates, as blood is pumped from the baby to the placenta. The direction, the blood is flowing depends to a big extend on what height the placenta is in relation to the newborn.

The statement is missleading as it suggests that the umbilical cord responsible for transferring the blood. There are more mechanisms involved directing the net blood flow.

To Do / Consensus for
List here what needs to be done to get the |08:49, 21 May 2014‎ full article up to Wikipedia standards. I'm of the mind that the original full article should be visible but with the {Multiple Issue} tag because 1. despite it's bias, it gives more information and 2. since there will be expert and knowledgeable editors heading here soon to start working on updating the page. The Thorned Rose (talk) 02:54, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I would also like to see the original article stay with the Multiple issues tag so that there is information there to start editing from. The article does need a lot of work but it would be good to start from somewhere and not from ground zero. It is also very frustrating to have the article being continually stubbed by an editor who is not contributing anything constructive to the article or trying to improve it in any way. I think the first steps are to remove the emotive language and add more citations.Staranise (talk) 12:07, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Having thought about it some more I think there needs to be sections on the practice of lotus birth, beliefs of practitioners, history, medical view of lotus birth. I wonder if we should include a section on lotus birth in the media? There was a write up about in in the NY times I believe.Staranise (talk) 21:11, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with addition of material, that is appropriately weighted and reliable sourced. The "original" article is in the article history and is available for anyone to see and mine for sources.  We should describe the views of proponents without giving undue weight/credence that their views are correct. Yobol (talk) 02:18, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the original article should be posted. There is a lot of interest in this topic, and current version is woefully lacking in information. Most people (myself included until recently) do not know how to view previous versions. Sarah J Buckley 22:24, 27 May 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarahjbuckley (talk • contribs)

For now I am reverting this page back to an earlier version but with using the current 9 February 2017 description. The RCOG statement has been moved to "Controversy and Safety Issues". In this form it contains multiple problems (see multiple issues tag) however I will be working on improving it over time. In the mean time the more extensive information is more important than overal tone, POV, issues etc. The Thorned Rose (talk) 04:17, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Good move, The Thorned Rose, as Staranise states above, it's a good idea to start from "somewhere" and edit that, rather than start from stub and build up. I agree that more citations would help strengthen this article, as some paragraphs only have one citation at the end of the paragraph. I would suggest working on adding citations to every sentence/claim - which might involve re-wording some of the statements/claims in order to better paraphrase what is in the original source. This topic isn't my personal area of expertise but I'm happy to help where I can. MurielMary (talk) 08:37, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Recent edit: March 2017
I have greatly updated the article and removed some copyrighted images (though some may still remain, but I haven't found information on that yet). I placed better citations and information surrounding lotus births. Sources say that the practice is spiritual rather than medical, so I provided two sections for those topics. Much of the information surrounding cord blood, as well as other promotional and unsourced information was WP:SYNTH as the sources had no relation to "lotus births" in particular.-- ZiaLater  ( talk  ) 23:10, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Named after which lotus?
According to the section "History" / subsection Lotus birth it seems that the practice is named after the book of the same title.

But after which lotus was this practice named ? The disambiguation page Lotus offers quite a few options.

Ping welcome, Steue (talk) 19:33, 6 December 2023 (UTC)