Talk:Umbilical cord/Archive 1

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)

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.

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)

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.

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by areseepee (talk • contribs)

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 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)

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)

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)

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)

Restructuring and article split
I am very, very sorry if this article does not have enough information...deepest appologies! 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)

Childbirth photo
I notice that an anonymous user has removed the childbirth picture 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 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 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

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)

Top of page image
I notice that KellyPhD Has replaced the top of page image Umbilicalcord.jpg with Normal_Childbirth.jpg. 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? 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 back down into the image gallery. Hyperdeath (talk) 18:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Reiterating. Actually, yes, the umbilical cord is very much about childbirth practices and neonatal health, considering the cultural ignorance around physiology. I have added another photo to convey the alternate reality KellyPhD (talk) 21:56, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Inside the baby?
What happens inside the neonate after birth? Do the veins just seal off and mingle with the rest of the baby's circulatory system? What is on the other side of my navel? 60.51.96.103 (talk) 12:51, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

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)

It's happened again. Please research the matter before making changes. &mdash; H y p e r d e a t h ( Talk ) 18:13, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

It happened yet again. I've added a hidden section of text within the main article to ward off any more "corrections". &mdash; H y p e r d e a t h ( Talk ) 21:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced material
I moved the following statements here, because I think they need references for inclusion in the article. Mikael Häggström (talk) 18:25, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Umbilical cord knot
I notice that we have a red link to Umbilical cord knot, which I was a bit surprised about. We recently had a baby who had a knot, and in all the drama I actually managed to get a quite reasonable photo of this, which I'll soon release under CC-by-SA. However, is there anyone who can write a decent medical stub on this topic? I am certainly interested in knowing what causes it and whether it was, in fact, a life threatening to our baby! - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 00:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * A good first step would be to upload the image to Wikimedia Commons. &mdash; H y p e r d e a t h ( Talk ) 20:08, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Sure, will do... now where on earth did I put the USB cable? :-) Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 14:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, now done. Anyone have any answers to my question above? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 14:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

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.


 * Also of note; the cord is ceremonially severed and kept in some cultures and religions, such as Nitaawigiwin (first of the six rites of passage) in the Medewiwin religion of several North American Native peoples. This is less common today, but still practiced.  Some non-denominational hospitals may allow such ceremonial observance.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.235.198.91 (talk) 03:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Toilet Baby Case
Does the cord ever just separate without cutting? As I read the article, the answer would seem to be no. 76.180.168.166 (talk) 16:31, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


 * this apparently answers. 76.180.168.166 (talk) 17:02, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

"Cancer causing toxins in human umbilical cords"
Could this part be removed or expanded? Stating that toxins are "present" without stating if they are at very high levels or not is misleading. Also I do not like the line stating "Blacks, Hispanics and Asians; and the poor tend to have higher rates." What does "rates" mean here? More toxin types or higher levels of all toxins? Also Blacks, Hispanics, Asians and poor is very sweeping. Should this instead say there are less in rich white people? Is Blacks the correct phrasing? Overall I feel this part could be clearer or even removed. I would be interested to hear what others think. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.27.189 (talk) 23:58, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

In Other Mammals? In Non-Mammals?
This article is almost entirely about humans and their umbilical cords, and provides very little information about umbilical cords in other species. Some Sharks (Non-Mammals) have umbilical cords, but this is not mentioned in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddombyddeath (talk • contribs) 09:03, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Please feel free to include this information (usually this is done in an "Other animals") section. I hope one day Wikipedia can offer comprehensive information on anatomy of multiple species. And welcome to Wikipedia! --Tom (LT) (talk) 02:32, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Studies on the effects of delayed clamping, or even non-severance
I am really curious about studies of delayed clamping and non-severance as opposed to current common practice of severance. This is truly necessary to complete the article in my opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:981:D34D:1:88B7:460B:1DB7:4D3D (talk) 10:59, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Umbilical cord. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120123194946/http://education.yahoo.com/reference/gray/subjects/subject/139 to http://education.yahoo.com/reference/gray/subjects/subject/139

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at Sourcecheck).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 03:28, 28 February 2016 (UTC)