Tattoos on lower back problematic during childbirth

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/561/81/200/tattoo.2.jpg

Large tattoos on the lower back and buttocks can lead to problems for women during childbirth, as the marking could prevent doctors from applying a local anaesthetic, reported the German medical journal Arzte Zeitung.

Tattoos are frequently positioned on the lower back, precisely where doctors inject the painkiller along the spine. Injecting through tattooed skin carries the risk of transmitting allergens or poisonous pigments into deep tissues, leading to irritation.

The study was based on work by a researcher at the University of California in San Diego. Doctors have been encouraged to use a different, more complicated method of providing anaesthesia to women with such tattoos.

http://www.mumbaimirror.com/nmirror/mmpaper.asp?sectid=7&articleid=5820062192568758200621849406

Tattoos on lower back problematic during childbirthAnd they look trampy too.

And they look trampy too.

Amen to that !

As Eric Thomson says, 'cops just love tattoos'.

That's why they call them the "tramp stamp". The girls that have them call it that.

And they look trampy too.

I dont think they're trampy. Where is a woman supposed to get a decent sized tattoo that isnt tiny that is easily hideable? On their stomach? if they ever got pregnant it would get stretched.

Or are men the only ones allowed to get tattoos without it being trampy

Plus Pixi's looks good.

I usually call people with bitch dogs, a sunflower hat, and like 5 buttons undone on his shirt the "fag stamp"

Where is a woman supposed to get a decent sized tattoo that isnt tiny that is easily hideable? Preferably nowhere.

Plus Pixi's looks good.Oh, well in that case...

Preferably nowhere.

Oh, well in that case...
But what good is my Eva without a giant swastika tattoo on her lower back

But what good is my Eva without a giant swastika tattoo on her lower back

Well, between husband and wife , that is a private matter and up to them.

I sure hate to see healthy young people putting marks all over their bodies .

And they look trampy too.

From a purely pragmatic point of view, they are a waste of money . You can't do anything with them .

The funny thing is, 40-50 years from now, there are going to be all these little old ladies with tatoos. That's going to look pretty weird from doctors and coroners points of view.

From a purely pragmatic point of view, they are a waste of money . You can't do anything with them .

Well no, you can't do anything with them. Most people get tats because they like what they're getting..they picked out a picture/drawing that means something or we feel is nice to look at. When we're 70 and you can't see the tat for wrinkles, well, that'll be our problem. :D

I personally wouldn't get a tat on my lower back...after bad times getting epidurals when giving birth, I dont want any kind of needle near my lower back..but to each their own.

Unscrupulous tat artists still use printers inks because they have great 'hiding power' (opacity and color density of the ink pigmentation).

The problem is that printing-ink tats may contain persistent organic pollutants such as polychlorinatedbiphenyls that cause ill health.