Walsh says,

A large number of women want to avoid pain. Some just don't fancy the pain [of childbirth]. More women should be prepared to withstand pain.

Who are these wussy women who for some reason "want to avoid pain"? And don't they care about their babies? Clearly not, because they don't understand that, as Walsh continues,

Pain in labour is a purposeful, useful thing, which has quite a number of benefits, such as preparing a mother for the responsibility of nurturing a newborn baby.

See, the pain of labor is apparently great training for, say, taking the kids to soccer practice or cooking them regular meals. If you don't sacrifice your autonomy by handing decisions about epidurals over to a midwife like Dr. Walsh, you'll never accomplish the total erasure of selfhood that is the mark of a great mom. But how are dads, cruelly denied the chance to "withstand" childbirth pain, supposed to prepare themselves for their responsibilities? (Mobster Junior Gotti may have an idea!)

Walsh does offer what sound like some useful alternatives to epidurals, such as "yoga, hypnosis, massage, support from their partners, hydrotherapy and birthing pools." And he advises that "in the west it has never been safer to have a baby," and women shouldn't be afraid. But ob-gyn Dr. Justin Clark says most of his other claims are bogus:

He's exaggerating the risks of epidurals. They aren't overused. In the main they're a good thing and almost always necessary, for example when there are complications, like a breech delivery or a prolonged induction, where the woman will get tired. It would be wrong to suggest that modern women are somehow less stoical than in the past.

Obstetrician Dr. Maggie Blott adds that the use of forceps, which Walsh says is made more common by epidurals, is "relatively simple" and often preferable to pain. She says, "Do not under-estimate the pain of having a baby - it is a very, very intense and painful experience."

Some women prefer a drug-free childbirth, and Dr. Blott says that birthing pain can serve a physiological purpose in some cases. In those cases, Walsh's alternative pain management techniques sound like a good addition to the menu of childbirth options. But assuming that women who choose epidurals are simply sissies who "don't fancy the pain" — and that they will be lesser mothers as a result — is simply insulting. The only thing this attitude "prepares" moms for is a lifetime of being judged.

It's Good For Women To Suffer The Pain Of A Natural Birth, Says Medical Chief [Observer]
Women 'Should Go Through Pain' In Childbirth, Says Male Midwife [Telegraph]
Pain In Childbirth 'A Good Thing' [BBC News]

Related: Junior Gotti Says Stone Agony 'Worse Than Childbirth' In Bid To Get Freed On Bail [NY Daily News]

Before we get into the actual, you know, issue, a brief note: how annoying is the portrayal of childbirth in rom-coms? You know the drill: Knocked Up, Nine Months, She's Having A Baby, Father if the Bride 2: hilarious antics ensue! Particularly annoying is when the crazed mom-to-be starts screeching about how much she hates the guy for knocking her up! LOL! Here's an egregious and typical example of the genre, from the classic Fools Rush In. Start at 6:20.

Anyhoo. Many of said films feature a 'natural birth plan' which then leaves the woman screaming for drugs midway through. And a new Swedish study claims to give the lie to "natural is better" - or, at any rate, claims that natural childbirth classes are fairly useless. Says the Beeb,

More than 1,000 mothers-to-be took part in the Swedish trial, thought to be the first major analysis of the efficacy of such preparation for childbirth....They attended one of two classes: the first taught natural coping methods, the other emphasised pain relief. but the BJOG study found no difference in the use of epidurals between the women when they went into labour. Just over half the women in each group ultimately opted for the spinal analgesia which reduces or eliminates the pain of contractions.

While one natural-birth advocate claims this is no argument against antenatal education - which, at the very least, fosters partner cooperation and can lead to a sense of relaxation and control, a spokesman for the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists says, rather smugly, that "this research may temper the statements of the more pro-natural people."

It was our general impression that women who opted for natural childbirth - or indeed took prenatal classses - did so not because they were under the impression that lamaze could simulate the numbing effects of an epidural, but rather because they wanted to experience the birth sans drugs, or didn't wish to expose the infant to them. If a woman went into natural childbirth expecting a pain-free cakewalk, well, sure, that would be a pretty rude awakening. Doesn't everyone know that childbirth in the post-infant-mortality modern west is a warm-hearted farce in which the mother is temporarily transformed into a pain-crazed clown prior to the father's transformation upon holding his child for the first time? Clearly the "pro-natural people" need a dose of Matthew Perry-style reality (with amusing paramedics, of course!), stat.
Natural Birth Classes Questions [BBC]
Fools Rush In [YouTube]

Still, the rumor keeps coming back. According to the Journal, a story on the topic of tattoos and epidurals appeared in Pregnancy magazine in July. And last year, the tattoo-culture blog Needled posted a link to a Snopes item about the "urban legend" of women with lower back tattoos being denied epidurals. The Snopes author, Barbara Mikkelson, likened the rumor to Garden of Eden drama: Eve's penalty for leading Adam astray. Even though the issue has been proven time after time to be a non-issue, why won't this rumor go away? Is it a psychic punishment for women who dare to get inked in a "sexy" way? Do the women themselves feel guilty about having a "tramp stamp"? And why isn't the truth getting out?

Why Some Expectant Moms Are Worried About Tattoos [WSJ]
Related: Suffer To Be Beautiful [Snopes]
In The News [Needled]