Talk:Lamaze technique

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Reproductive medicine task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Women's Health Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's Health, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's Health on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HealthWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HealthTemplate:WikiProject Women's Healthwomen's health articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Untitled

From the last part of the article: "orgasm to induce or hasten labor".

WHAT? Can someone clarify?? 189.100.201.23 (talk) 21:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I made a few edits: - took out the information about orgasm, as it isn't central to Lamaze's teachings - added that continuous fetal monitoring also was a reason for Lamaze's change of focus - added that Lamaze isn't just about reducing pain but also promoting normal birth, and educating for third stage (moments after baby has been born) - added a few more techniques lamaze teaches, including a few comfort measures but also a few of the tennents of normal birth (labor starts on its own, spontaneous pushing, informed consent/refusal, upright positions for labor and birth, no separation of mother and baby. - defined "birth ball" more clearly - took focus off breathing techniques, as this is no longer what Lamaze is focused on —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.92.116.106 (talk) 17:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion about primary usage of "Lamaze"

I took out the redirect to Lamaze technique, because Lamaze is also an international nonprofit foundation, and a brand name of children's toys (the name is licensed by the Lamaze International foundation). Additionally there is now a Lamaze magazine put out by the Lamaze foundation. It would be incorrect to say that "Lamaze technique" is the primary usage, since many people first encounter the name Lamaze in the context of children's toys and have never heard of the Lamaze technique or even of the Lamaze foundation.Wwallacee (talk) 10:26, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. One American brand of toys does not stop a long-established birth technique from being the primary usage of "Lamaze". I have reverted the redirect.PamD (talk) 11:12, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At present the disambiguation page contains two mal-formed entries for entities whose names start with "Lamaze" but which do not have articles, and have no blue links in the entries, and two entries for people with the surname "Lamaze". On this basis there should hardly be a disambiguation page at all, and there is no visible justification for having "Lamaze" point to anything other than Lamaze technique. I would also point out that if the page were ever moved, leaving Lamaze pointing to, or being, a disambiguation page, then the moving editor would have the responsibility for changing all the incoming links (not just the bundle which come from the "Pregnancy and Childbirth" template, but those from assorted soap opera episodes referring to "Lamaze" classes" etc), because it is wrong to make changes which downgrade the quality of WP for readers following those links (ie leading them to a disambiguation page rather than to the page they need). PamD (talk) 11:24, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the interests of readers, I've update the link from the template so it points right to the article. PamD (talk) 11:27, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence-based technique??

I see this sentence: "The Lamaze technique is not an evidence-based medical therapy. Its effectiveness benefit could be explained by a placebo effect, or simply by diverting the woman's attention from the pain of labour to the breathing exercise". It strikes me immediately as a non-sequitur. Evidence-based means that we need evidence to believe that it works. The numerous mothers and children who have benefitted from the technique would suffice for evidence, so there is simply the question: Do mothers and children benefit? I.e.: Does it work?

We may ask the separate question, "how does it work?" but whether the answer is divine intervention, placebo effect, or increased oxygen concentration in the left pinky toe, that will not affect the evidence-based-ness of the answer to the question "does it work?".

I propose we simply remove the first sentence in the article. It is evidence-based. I'd be just as happy to replace it with an awkwardly-worded but true statement, such as, "There is no evidence to indicate the method of effectiveness." Any objections? Is this going to start a poop-storm?

67.175.146.68 (talk) 20:00, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lamaze is NOT a Technique

Lamaze is an evidence based method of education to prepare women and their partners for labor, birth, and parenting. Classes include information on pain relief in labor ranging from epidural to use of positions to water birth to relaxation, and everything in between. They are the highest accredited certifying organization and work on topics such as improving maternal mortality and increasing a woman's confidence in her choices surrounding labor.

Certification position

I'm unsure of where to put the sentence about certification. I moved it to the head, but I'm not entirely sure that's where it should be, nor if it should be included or not.

I leave that decision to an editor more experienced than me, though I believe I've done enough to warrant removal of the advertising template and have removed it. 🎜Oktavia Miki🎝_talk 21:14, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]