Talk:Lithotomy position

Medicine Mid‑importance

	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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

It is requested that an anatomical diagram or diagrams be included in this article to improve its quality. Specific illustrations, plots or diagrams can be requested at the Graphic Lab.
For more information, refer to discussion on this page and/or the listing at Wikipedia:Requested images.

Louis XIV

From the article on the French king:

Louis XIV had a long-lasting impact on childbirth, instigating years of belief that women should give birth lying on a table with their legs in stirrups. This came about after he commanded the construction of a viewing table so that he could have a better view of the birth of one of his mistress's children. When word got around of the king's decision, "lesser mortals" quickly copied the practice, and saw it as the preferred position for many years.

From this article:

It became 'popular' as a position for labour, after the French King Louis XIV, insisted that his wife give birth in such a position so he could have a good view of the birth.

Using Google, I am unable to find anything approximating a reliable source for it. A footnote here prefaces it with "According to legend...". I'm inclined to remove it. (If someone would prefer to have it reinserted, but marked as a legend with appropriate references, I'd have no objections.)

jdb ❋ (talk) 3 July 2005 21:52 (UTC)

removed

"Few birth centres or labour wards in Western countries use the lithotomy postion for active labour." Should that be eastern or western european or maybe until recently???--Gbleem 06:46, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cited "source" is a message board. This article is unsubstantiated and tremendously POV-- even midwives don't go so far as to posit that lithotomy position is harmful and outdated, only that women should have babies however is most comfortable. Perhaps we should be citing a professional position statement instead? --207.181.215.78 (talk) 14:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Factual accuracy and improper citation

I have taken a look at the first cited paper (Johanson, et al., "Has the medicalisation of childbirth gone too far?", Brit. Med. J. 324: 892-895, 2002), and it supports none of the cited claims in the article. Specifically:

there is no discussion of blood flow or its relation to morbidity and mortality of mother or infant;
the article does not distinguish between "passive" vs. "active" birthing;
there is no discussion of the lithotomy position at all (the word "lithotomy" appears only once in the entire article and is used as a casual description of the most common position for giving birth);
the article does not single out the United States for use of the lithotomy position, nor does it cite any "solid scientific evidence" against giving birth in the lithotomy position; and
there is no discussion of use of the lithotomy position as a trend towards medicalization of birth.

I have tagged the statements that it does not support because the cited article simply is not appropriate support for these claims. If they cannot be substantiated by a credible source, these statements will be removed. --chodges (talk) 06:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed this section since it appears that nobody disputes my conclusions above. --chodges (talk) 23:33, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve read your conclusions. Szagg (talk) 13:23, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14 years later Szagg (talk) 13:24, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lithotomy position. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101025223022/http://birthingnaturally.net/barp/lithotomy.html to http://www.birthingnaturally.net/barp/lithotomy.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:22, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Lithotomic" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Lithotomic has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 16 § Lithotomic until a consensus is reached. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 20:41, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]