Do Fundie Women Believe In Inducing Labor?

[ljohnson2006]

Just read the Maxwell post about the upcoming grand baby. Anne Marie was two weeks late with her first. Do these women go to real drs? Most dr.'s would be scheduling an induction at that point. Do these women believe in that?

[NotALoserLikeYou]

Just read the Maxwell post about the upcoming grand baby. Anne Marie was two weeks late with her first. Do these women go to real drs? Most dr.'s would be scheduling an induction at that point. Do these women believe in that?

Some do and some don't. Just because a Dr. wants to schedule an induction does not mean it is necessary. Anna had a homebirth so she probably is fine with waiting however long it takes as long as things are fine. I think if they were in distress she would go to a doctor - Melanie went to plenty of doctors. She had 2 csections. I think everyone just wants a healthy baby.

We have read about some extreme groups that don't go to the doctor or midwife. Where church members delivered the babies and the mother has died because they didn't believe in hospitals at all.

[Sister_Wife]

One thing I find baffling on this forum is that despite the opposition to patriarchal systems within religious groups, there seems to be a great affinity towards patriarchal systems in healthcare. There should only ever be one person in charge of making decisions regarding regarding pregnancy and birth, and of course that is the woman herself. The idea that because a woman has reached 42 weeks gestation, that her doctor should step in and schedule an induction is rather ridiculous and not at all taking into consideration the individual needs or overall health of the mother and baby.

However I do acknowledge, that some women in these families will be taking direction from their headship, in regards to whether they have seen or will see a care provider during pregnancy. This is just as abhorrent as an Obstetrician believing he has decision making rights for the woman.

Inductions for healthy women and babies come with risk as does waiting for labour to begin in it's own time. The decision to do either should always be with the woman.

midwifethinking.com/2010/09/16/induction-of-labour-balancing-risks/

[Mama Mia]

One thing I find baffling on this forum is that despite the opposition to patriarchal systems within religious groups, there seems to be a great affinity towards patriarchal systems in healthcare. There should only ever be one person in charge of making decisions regarding regarding pregnancy and birth, and of course that is the woman herself. The idea that because a woman has reached 42 weeks gestation, that her doctor should step in and schedule an induction is rather ridiculous and not at all taking into consideration the individual needs or overall health of the mother and baby.

However I do acknowledge, that some women in these families will be taking direction from their headship, in regards to whether they have seen or will see a care provider during pregnancy. This is just as abhorrent as an Obstetrician believing he has decision making rights for the woman.

Inductions for healthy women and babies come with risk as does waiting for labour to begin in it's own time. The decision to do either should always be with the woman.

midwifethinking.com/2010/09/16/induction-of-labour-balancing-risks/

:clap: :clap: :clap:

I completely agree. And I also find it baffling. Obviously there is a lot of diversity of opinion here, but I've come across very few groups on any board that seem to be so largely " doctor knows best, don't question the medical establishment"

[lilwriter85]

I remember a fundie lite blogger induced labor with one of her kids. I want to say that it was Ashley Lancaster, but I'm not sure.

[Trynn]

While they might SCHEDULE it at 2 weeks, it's possible the baby made an appearance before the scheduled induction.

[amster]

:clap: :clap: :clap:

I completely agree. And I also find it baffling. Obviously there is a lot of diversity of opinion here, but I've come across very few groups on any board that seem to be so largely " doctor knows best, don't question the medical establishment"

Seriously? What is wrong with placing your trust in a medical professional (male OR female) who has done countless years of study to get to that point? How can you possibly think that just because someone has the ability to grow a womb tenant, that they are suddenly more qualified to make decisions about the health and wellbeing of that said child?

[NotALoserLikeYou]

Seriously? What is wrong with placing your trust in a medical professional (male OR female) who has done countless years of study to get to that point? How can you possibly think that just because someone has the ability to grow a womb tenant, that they are suddenly more qualified to make decisions about the health and wellbeing of that said child?

With statistics like a 34% c-section rate, 20-40% of births being induced, and the highest infant mortality rate in the industrialized world, it is perfectly logical to question American Obstetricians.

[2xx1xy1JD]

There are obstetricians who schedule inductions for reasons of convenience. Women should inform themselves of the risks of any procedure, and ask themselves if "the baby needs to be born by Thurs. if you want me to deliver you before I go on vacation" is a reason to assume those risks.

I don't see people on this board saying that a woman shouldn't be informed, or that she shouldn't have the right to make her own medical decisions.

That said, I get the sense that many on this board snark at crunchy and/or fundie attitudes that are anti-science and which may put folks at risk. For example, there are risk to being overdue (meconium can cause potentially fatal complications, larger babies are harder to deliver), and if someone wasn't receiving prenatal care on principle, that could be dangerous.

[Sister_Wife]

Seriously? What is wrong with placing your trust in a medical professional (male OR female) who has done countless years of study to get to that point? How can you possibly think that just because someone has the ability to grow a womb tenant, that they are suddenly more qualified to make decisions about the health and wellbeing of that said child?

Sorry women of the world, you only get a say in what happens to your body if you've been to medical school. Sounds logical.

[tigerchild]

There's a spectrum of what docs believe as far as induction times, as well. Some docs won't let you go more than a week. With my firstborn, my doc let me go to 42+3. Of course, I was like 27, and super healthy, perfect pregnancy, blah blah blah. Would they let me do that at 40, no, probably.

Some docs won't do VBACs at all, some will be fine with VBA2C. My current OB did schedule a c-section for me (I've had 2) but intimated that if I go into labor before then, we can see how it goes with good monitoring. Breech/transverse is an automatic c-section for some docs, but my first OB was very comfortable performing external versions, and delivering breech for people who'd successfully given birth vaginally before.

Let's not pretend all OBs are lockstep in agreement with what they will/won't do. That's a silly assumption, IMO. With this pregnancy, I saw 3 OBs and 2 midwives in the practice, and frankly? Each OB had different parameters of what they were comfortable with. (I knew I was high risk and probably not eligble for vaginal delivery so I didn't bother with the midwives after awhile). Yet...my circumstances were the same, and they were looking at the same file.

[Sister_Wife]

Every health care system in the world faces the same essential questions. Who decides how a baby is born? Who chooses where a birth takes place? Who bears the ultimate responsibility for a birth and its outcome? What are the legal rights of birthing women? What are the responsibilities of doctors, midwives and other caregivers in childbirth? What are the rights and interests of the unborn, and who has the authority to make decisions on its behalf?

The answers to these questions lie at the crossroad of fundamental human rights and professional responsibilities. The doctor’s professional responsibilities end where the birthing woman’s human rights begin.

All people, including pregnant women, have a fundamental human right to make decisions about their own body. This right encompasses the right to informed consent and the right to refuse treatment from a healthcare provider. The European Court of Human Rights got it right.

Birthing women have a fundamental human right to choose the circumstances in which they give birth.

This means two things:

1) A woman giving birth is the final decision-maker in the birth process about the birth of her baby. Doctors, midwives and others can inform, advise, and support her, but they must give the final decision about what will be done during childbirth to the woman who is giving birth.

2) Birthing women must have supported alternatives to choose from. It isn’t meaningful to be recognized as the chooser but denied access to the choices. Birthing women have the right to be supported in what they, personally and as individuals, need to bring their babies into the world.

What should this mean, in practice, for birthing women?

As a woman giving birth, nobody can tell you that you “must†do anything. They can’t tell you that you have no other option than to labor on your back, hook to machines, submit to induction, or submit to a cesarean section. The people around you only have the right to inform, advise, and then ask you what you want to do.

Nobody can “let you†or “not let you†do anything. It is you who are “letting†other people touch you, assist you, perform surgery on you, or hold your baby. Not the other way around!

You have the right to choose where you give birth and who will be present during labor and delivery.

Nobody should touch you without asking, and receiving, your permission. This includes vaginal examinations.

Nobody can tell you that you will be induced on date X. Providers only have the right, and the responsibility, to advise you of their opinion, offer their services to you, and to support you in your decision about what is best for you.

If you want pain relief, and you are giving birth in an environment where such relief is available, you have the right to make the choice to receive it.

Nobody can cut an episiotomy on you if you do not consent to one.

Nobody can coerce, bully, or force you into cesarean section surgery-- you have the right to utilize surgery, or to demand to be supported in a vaginal birth.

Nobody can touch your baby without your permission. After you give birth to your baby, you can decide, with information and advice from your providers, whether your baby needs anybody but you. If your baby is doing fine, you might choose to possess your baby. Nobody else has the right to “let you hold your baby†until they are done “letting you†and take it away. You are the one who decides whether and when you let your baby be held by anybody else or taken away from you.

This list is not exhaustive. But these are some of the issues that come up in childbirth, and this is how things would look if the fundamental human rights of the women were respected.

But far too often, those rights are not respected.

“But who is looking out for the baby?†they say, when a woman tries to claim her role as the decision-maker in childbirth.

Does a woman’s desire for a physiological childbirth or refusal of a cesarean section put her into conflict with her unborn child?

A mother looks out for her baby. Nobody is more invested in the outcome of a birth than the pregnant woman. It is false to claim that, the moment a mother disagrees with or even questions the recommendation of her care provider, she relinquishes responsibility over her unborn child, and can legitimately be forced in the name of her child.

To claim that a mother who questions a doctor’s decision to cut her open is in conflict with her unborn child is outrageous in the face of today’s rates of cesarean surgery. Birthing women should be alert to any efforts to coerce or force them into medical interventions made in the name of their unborn babies.

From here: humanrightsinchildbirth.com/human-rights

[Melissa1977]

The most of fundies we snark about seem to have medical care in their pregnancies. Anna Marie Maxwell has home births because she has low-risk pregnancies, but I'm sure she'd go to a hospital if she need (Melanie has had 4 hospital births). Kelly Bates has had both home births and hospital births, depending on her health status at each time.

They talk about God giving children and whatever, but they are in trouble, they run to the hospital.

[Mama Mia]

Seriously? What is wrong with placing your trust in a medical professional (male OR female) who has done countless years of study to get to that point? How can you possibly think that just because someone has the ability to grow a womb tenant, that they are suddenly more qualified to make decisions about the health and wellbeing of that said child?

Well since a racist, ageist, elitist ignorant bitch of an o.b. Came within an inch of killing my daughter and grandchild out of sheer unadulterated stupidity, and because I personally had my life wrecked by a greedy jerk of a general surgeon ( non pregnancy related matter ) ........I'm gonna go with thinking blind obedience to a medical professional is not always wise. There are, of course, fantastic doctors out there, but that doesn't mean they always know best.

For example, my daughter definitely " knew better" than the Dr. When she told her that her water was leaking, further clues like extreme abdominal pain and a 104 degree fever a week later might have also been a slight clue of a problem....however the arrogant Dr. just brushed it off as "oh silly young girls, probably you have the flu, and probably you peed yourself " I could go on and on but I'm getting very ragey.

[amster]

Sorry women of the world, you only get a say in what happens to your body if you've been to medical school. Sounds logical.

I never said that AT ALL. I was specifically addressing the bolded parts in OP's post. Of course everyone should get to have a say in their healthcare. But when people make blanket statements that the decision should ALWAYS be with the woman, I shake my head. What if some nut like Zsu decided she absolutely did not want to be induced (just as an example) because she didn't want some perv all up in her business? What if, by allowing her to be the only one to make that decision, the baby died? She and everyone around her would be wanting to sue the doctor for negligence. The average person does not have enough medical knowledge to make an informed decision about their healthcare. Pretending otherwise is just :cray-cray:

[2xx1xy1JD]

I never said that AT ALL. I was specifically addressing the bolded parts in OP's post. Of course everyone should get to have a say in their healthcare. But when people make blanket statements that the decision should ALWAYS be with the woman, I shake my head. What if some nut like Zsu decided she absolutely did not want to be induced (just as an example) because she didn't want some perv all up in her business? What if, by allowing her to be the only one to make that decision, the baby died? She and everyone around her would be wanting to sue the doctor for negligence. The average person does not have enough medical knowledge to make an informed decision about their healthcare. Pretending otherwise is just :cray-cray:

What gives Zsu or any other woman the right to make decisions is the fact that the baby is in her body. Period.

That doesn't mean that every pregnant woman will make the healthiest decisions. It does mean that the law has no business intruding into a woman's body in the name of "fetal protection". For me, that's what being pro-choice is all about.

That doesn't mean that every decision is immune from criticism or snark, and deserves support. I can bluntly say that heavy drinking during pregnancy can fuck up the baby for life due to fetal alcohol syndrome, for example, while opposing any move to lock up pregnant women with addictions.

[2xx1xy1JD]

Well since a racist, ageist, elitist ignorant bitch of an o.b. Came within an inch of killing my daughter and grandchild out of sheer unadulterated stupidity, and because I personally had my life wrecked by a greedy jerk of a general surgeon ( non pregnancy related matter ) ........I'm gonna go with thinking blind obedience to a medical professional is not always wise. There are, of course, fantastic doctors out there, but that doesn't mean they always know best.

For example, my daughter definitely " knew better" than the Dr. When she told her that her water was leaking, further clues like extreme abdominal pain and a 104 degree fever a week later might have also been a slight clue of a problem....however the arrogant Dr. just brushed it off as "oh silly young girls, probably you have the flu, and probably you peed yourself " I could go on and on but I'm getting very ragey.

Amster:

I'm not anti-doctor. In fact, I'm married to a doctor and probably see a lot more of the medical system from the inside than many posters. With that in mind, I will say that doctors are simply a resource.

A doctor has years of training and experience (which Dr. Google certainly can't replace). Not all doctors, though, are equal. You need the doctor who knows exactly how to handle YOUR situation, and who cares enough to do so well.

The doctor-patient relationship is a partnership. YOU are the expert on what is normal for your body, and on your own symptoms. I remember when my oldest daughter was baby, she was more miserable than usual and I took her in to the children's clinic to check her ears. We got a kindly older doctor who basically patted me on the head, said that babies as happy as mine were healthy, and then said that he'd just check her ears to prove this to a nervous first-time mom like me. One minute later, he said, "well, she's the most cheerful baby with a double ear infection and bronchitis that I ever saw!" He was trained on what the average baby was like, but I was the expert on what was normal for MY baby. On a more serious note, I remember a case with my mom's former colleague. She kept complaining to my mom that her back hurt. She was what I'd describe as a "stoic WASP", and she likely simply told her doctor "my back hurts", got a diagnosis that it was likely osteoarthritis, and accepted it. My mom was telling me this when she also threw in "she tells me that the pain is worse than even her breast cancer was". Well, as soon as I repeated that to my husband, he immediately told me to call my mom and tell her that the friend needed to go to the ER ASAP to check if the cancer had come back. Unfortunately, he was right.

Mistakes also happen. I've had IV needles that weren't placed properly in the vein, IV bags that run dry, and even had a nurse almost give me an IV with pitocin when I came in for a scheduled c-section. I've had an anesthetist forget to give me oxygen. I've walked into a consultation appointment and realized that they are looking at someone else's file. Lab results don't always get processed quickly. You need to be on top of things, and an advocate for your own health.

[2xx1xy1JD]

Every health care system in the world faces the same essential questions. Who decides how a baby is born? Who chooses where a birth takes place? Who bears the ultimate responsibility for a birth and its outcome? What are the legal rights of birthing women? What are the responsibilities of doctors, midwives and other caregivers in childbirth? What are the rights and interests of the unborn, and who has the authority to make decisions on its behalf?

The answers to these questions lie at the crossroad of fundamental human rights and professional responsibilities. The doctor’s professional responsibilities end where the birthing woman’s human rights begin.

All people, including pregnant women, have a fundamental human right to make decisions about their own body. This right encompasses the right to informed consent and the right to refuse treatment from a healthcare provider. The European Court of Human Rights got it right.

Birthing women have a fundamental human right to choose the circumstances in which they give birth.

This means two things:

1) A woman giving birth is the final decision-maker in the birth process about the birth of her baby. Doctors, midwives and others can inform, advise, and support her, but they must give the final decision about what will be done during childbirth to the woman who is giving birth.

2) Birthing women must have supported alternatives to choose from. It isn’t meaningful to be recognized as the chooser but denied access to the choices. Birthing women have the right to be supported in what they, personally and as individuals, need to bring their babies into the world.

What should this mean, in practice, for birthing women?

As a woman giving birth, nobody can tell you that you “must†do anything. They can’t tell you that you have no other option than to labor on your back, hook to machines, submit to induction, or submit to a cesarean section. The people around you only have the right to inform, advise, and then ask you what you want to do.

Nobody can “let you†or “not let you†do anything. It is you who are “letting†other people touch you, assist you, perform surgery on you, or hold your baby. Not the other way around!

You have the right to choose where you give birth and who will be present during labor and delivery.

Nobody should touch you without asking, and receiving, your permission. This includes vaginal examinations.

Nobody can tell you that you will be induced on date X. Providers only have the right, and the responsibility, to advise you of their opinion, offer their services to you, and to support you in your decision about what is best for you.

If you want pain relief, and you are giving birth in an environment where such relief is available, you have the right to make the choice to receive it.

Nobody can cut an episiotomy on you if you do not consent to one.

Nobody can coerce, bully, or force you into cesarean section surgery-- you have the right to utilize surgery, or to demand to be supported in a vaginal birth.

Nobody can touch your baby without your permission. After you give birth to your baby, you can decide, with information and advice from your providers, whether your baby needs anybody but you. If your baby is doing fine, you might choose to possess your baby. Nobody else has the right to “let you hold your baby†until they are done “letting you†and take it away. You are the one who decides whether and when you let your baby be held by anybody else or taken away from you.

This list is not exhaustive. But these are some of the issues that come up in childbirth, and this is how things would look if the fundamental human rights of the women were respected.

But far too often, those rights are not respected.

“But who is looking out for the baby?†they say, when a woman tries to claim her role as the decision-maker in childbirth.

Does a woman’s desire for a physiological childbirth or refusal of a cesarean section put her into conflict with her unborn child?

A mother looks out for her baby. Nobody is more invested in the outcome of a birth than the pregnant woman. It is false to claim that, the moment a mother disagrees with or even questions the recommendation of her care provider, she relinquishes responsibility over her unborn child, and can legitimately be forced in the name of her child.

To claim that a mother who questions a doctor’s decision to cut her open is in conflict with her unborn child is outrageous in the face of today’s rates of cesarean surgery. Birthing women should be alert to any efforts to coerce or force them into medical interventions made in the name of their unborn babies.

From here: humanrightsinchildbirth.com/human-rights

I'll agree with that EXCEPT for the unconditional access to "supported alternatives" part.

Pregnant women should have absolutely authority over their own bodies, but they can't force others to provide care. A doctor has the right to say "I am not comfortable doing X." No, a doctor cannot treat without consent, but you also don't have a right to have your doctor be a cheerleader for your decision. For example, where I live, a mentally competent adult who is a Jehovah's Witness can say "under no circumstances will I consent to a blood transfusion", and the hospital can be sued if it goes against that instruction. The doctors, however, will clearly tell the patient that they may die without a transfusion, and a surgeon may refuse to do some operations if no transfusion is possible.

Does that limit choice? Yes, on a practical level, it does. A pregnant woman may have absolute authority over her own body, but she does not have that control over her health care providers.

[Fargood]

I'm a believer in modern medicine, so I am not a "crunchy, natural is always best no matter what and if you do anything but give birth in your hand made home birthing pool you're doing it all wrong person."

I am a 40 year old women with an uncomplicated pregnancy and I also happen to give birth to children with obnoxiously large heads. I live 5 hours from the nearest NICU and 2 hours from the nearest hospital that will deliver babies. The hospital that is 2 hours away has a notoriously high C-section rate and a facility that is straight out of the 1940s. The "birthing" rooms don't even have bathrooms, you have to go down the hall to do your business while you're in labor or after labor or whatever. Flat out Kafka-esque. Can you imagine having that first post-baby poop in a STALL?

Even though it is my hospital's policy (the nice hospital that is 5 hours away) not to induce babies without a medical reason, damn straight I'm asking for an induction. I prefer to give birth vaginally and as a 40 year old with a big baby, I know the hospital near me will barely even let me labor naturally before some doctor decides it's quittin' time and slaps me on a surgical table and gives me a C-section before the epidural has even kicked in. Did I mention is really fucking cold here and it snows a lot? Five hour drive while in labor and possible snow storm. Good times.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I don't think all the folks on this board have some sort of blind obedience to people with white coats, but rather, most would strive to make educated decisions based on all the evidence around them, and that includes medical evidence.

I'm sure that my decision to be induced looks like I'm bowing to some sort of dictatorial physician telling me to have an inducement because I have big babies and an itty-bitty pelvic bone, but when you look at the totally of the evidence, I'm making a decision based on all my circumstances with the input of a physician that I trust.

I don't think I'm special. I think most women, if given the right information, will strive to make decisions based on the information provided to them and researched by them. I think what bothers me is that child birth (and breastfeeding) is yet another venue through which women get to launch criticism at one another without reproach.

[2xx1xy1JD]

I'm a believer in modern medicine, so I am not a "crunchy, natural is always best no matter what and if you do anything but give birth in your hand made home birthing pool you're doing it all wrong person."

I am a 40 year old women with an uncomplicated pregnancy and I also happen to give birth to children with obnoxiously large heads. I live 5 hours from the nearest NICU and 2 hours from the nearest hospital that will deliver babies. The hospital that is 2 hours away has a notoriously high C-section rate and a facility that is straight out of the 1940s. The "birthing" rooms don't even have bathrooms, you have to go down the hall to do your business while you're in labor or after labor or whatever. Flat out Kafka-esque. Can you imagine having that first post-baby poop in a STALL?

Even though it is my hospital's policy (the nice hospital that is 5 hours away) not to induce babies without a medical reason, damn straight I'm asking for an induction. I prefer to give birth vaginally and as a 40 year old with a big baby, I know the hospital near me will barely even let me labor naturally before some doctor decides it's quittin' time and slaps me on a surgical table and gives me a C-section before the epidural has even kicked in. Did I mention is really fucking cold here and it snows a lot? Five hour drive while in labor and possible snow storm. Good times.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I don't think all the folks on this board have some sort of blind obedience to people with white coats, but rather, most would strive to make educated decisions based on all the evidence around them, and that includes medical evidence.

I'm sure that my decision to be induced looks like I'm bowing to some sort of dictatorial physician telling me to have an inducement because I have big babies and an itty-bitty pelvic bone, but when you look at the totally of the evidence, I'm making a decision based on all my circumstances with the input of a physician that I trust.

I don't think I'm special. I think most women, if given the right information, will strive to make decisions based on the information provided to them and researched by them. I think what bothers me is that child birth (and breastfeeding) is yet another venue through which women get to launch criticism at one another without reproach.

You made a decision based on your real-world circumstances and unique situation. That's what decision-making is all about.

I felt that my first 2 scheduled c-sections were perfectly compatible with my views on women knowing and respecting their bodies. I was given choices when I found out that my babies were breech. I was happy about that. And then, taking into account all the factors including my own fears and issues from a pregnancy loss the year before, I decided that a planned c-section would be easier for ME than trying to turn the baby or trying to birth a breech baby.

[salex]

With statistics like a 34% c-section rate, 20-40% of births being induced, and the highest infant mortality rate in the industrialized world, it is perfectly logical to question American Obstetricians.

Most of the people I know who schedule induced labor are women who are scheduling their maternity leave, not women whose doctors said... how does saturday look for you?

[Cran]

The phrase "doctor will not LET women go above x weeks/do this or that" makes me bristle with indignation. No doctor is allowed to do something to a person without consent. He might propose treatment he thinks beneficial due to study and experience, but the decision rests with the person who receives care.

Doctors can be good or can be bad, and a good outcome for a pregnancy does not necessarily mean all interventions that had been made were necessary and helped the health of mother and child. Just take episiotomies. Done nearly routinely, benefit nil (tears heal better and with less complications, but a cut is easier to stitch up....).

I've read an interesting article (don't remember where or which, sorry) which proposed that feminism and the health care system, especially the birth sector, have a complicated relationship: Pain in childbirth was long considered as a punishment for Eve's sin, so the first reaction of feminists towards birth was: "Fuck that, I'm not having those punishment-pain-crap, GIVE ME PAINKILLERS!". Which led to OB-led births in a hospital setting. These days, we're beginning to see a backlash against this system, which has led to too much emphasis on pregnancy being a medical event instead of a natural one. I think this theory has some merit.

And in my personal opinion, the US-system where a doctor is the main health provider during pregnancy doesn't help. Doctors are trained to intervene in emergencies, when something is not right = an illness. This makes them far more intervention-happy than people with a different approach towards birth like midwives. Pregnancies overseen mainly by midwives (trained and licensed, no "lay midwife" or a mere doula!) have better outcomes and less interventions.

onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD004667.pub3/abstract

Feminism in health care is a topic that should receive FAR MORE attention, imho. Women are more frequently shamed by doctors, receive frequently care that's worse than the care males receive, especially for illness that is considered "male" like heart attacks, and even in industrialized nations, the care many women receive under birth is sub-standard. Did you know that Venezuela passed a law that forbids forcing women to labour on their backs, among other things (it's a law that covers the rights of women to live violence-free, and among that is the right to be free from Obstetric violence) because it's an act of violence? How far we haven't come in Europe and the US...!

A blog I really, really do like that deals with this topic is humanwithuterus.wordpress.com/

[Sister_Wife]

The phrase "doctor will not LET women go above x weeks/do this or that" makes me bristle with indignation. No doctor is allowed to do something to a person without consent. He might propose treatment he thinks beneficial due to study and experience, but the decision rests with the person who receives care.

Doctors can be good or can be bad, and a good outcome for a pregnancy does not necessarily mean all interventions that had been made were necessary and helped the health of mother and child. Just take episiotomies. Done nearly routinely, benefit nil (tears heal better and with less complications, but a cut is easier to stitch up....).

I've read an interesting article (don't remember where or which, sorry) which proposed that feminism and the health care system, especially the birth sector, have a complicated relationship: Pain in childbirth was long considered as a punishment for Eve's sin, so the first reaction of feminists towards birth was: "Fuck that, I'm not having those punishment-pain-crap, GIVE ME PAINKILLERS!". Which led to OB-led births in a hospital setting. These days, we're beginning to see a backlash against this system, which has led to too much emphasis on pregnancy being a medical event instead of a natural one. I think this theory has some merit.

And in my personal opinion, the US-system where a doctor is the main health provider during pregnancy doesn't help. Doctors are trained to intervene in emergencies, when something is not right = an illness. This makes them far more intervention-happy than people with a different approach towards birth like midwives. Pregnancies overseen mainly by midwives (trained and licensed, no "lay midwife" or a mere doula!) have better outcomes and less interventions.

onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD004667.pub3/abstract

Feminism in health care is a topic that should receive FAR MORE attention, imho. Women are more frequently shamed by doctors, receive frequently care that's worse than the care males receive, especially for illness that is considered "male" like heart attacks, and even in industrialized nations, the care many women receive under birth is sub-standard. Did you know that Venezuela passed a law that forbids forcing women to labour on their backs, among other things (it's a law that covers the rights of women to live violence-free, and among that is the right to be free from Obstetric violence) because it's an act of violence? How far we haven't come in Europe and the US...!

A blog I really, really do like that deals with this topic is humanwithuterus.wordpress.com/

I wish I could click 'like' a hundred times! You've hit the nail on the head re: feminism and childbirth.

[gustava]

Sorry women of the world, you only get a say in what happens to your body if you've been to medical school. Sounds logical.

If the pregnant woman had sole control over where she would give birth, Zsu would deliver dead Twin A at home, along with a, hopefully, live Twin B.

[Cran]

Ah, but Zsu HAS complete control over where she gives birth. It is a matter of deciding if she thinks delivering at home is worth the risk. Nobody would force her to drive to a hospital, undergo a forced caesarean etc. She can sty at home, with a midwife, alone, whatever, but she chooses NOT to do so because she has, after consultation with doctors, formed the opinion (and in my mind, correctly formed the opinion) that giving birth at home (and perhaps unassisted) would greatly increase the risk for her child to die, and she doesn't want that. So she has taken full control over her birthing choices.

For all things I fault Zsu, I think the way she mastered her traumatic pregnancy and the decisions she made are a good example of informed consent.