Arkansas Midwife Loses License - Mother Speaks Out Merged

[SweetFellowshipper]

11 hours ago, Denim Jumper said:

That's the thing: doctors don't get sued unless something goes very wrong. The best possible outcome (safe birth with a live, healthy mom and baby at the end) is what prevents lawsuits. In other words, birth interventions aren't just about preventing lawsuits, but about preventing the injuries and deaths that lead to lawsuits. 

Agree to disagree, my father in law works with medical malpractice lawsuits and it's a complex landscape that protects mostly doctors, not patients. There are many possible complications for mother and baby (including increases risk of death) from unnecessary birth interventions just as there are many possible complications from late interventions (or no interventions, though that's rare if they are at all unnecessary unless you are not using any medical professional a la Jill). Also, nurse midwives usually work in a hospital or in a birthing center with direct access to a hospital. The things you're mentioning where c sections are necessary but not done don't happen with midwives with that level of training, they happen with untrained "midwives" like the one Jill uses. Anyway, the World Health Organization says c section rates should be 10-15% and that anything above increases rather than decreases health risks, and I trust them. 

3 hours ago, Joyleaf said:

Considering studies about homebirth:
Studies from other countries aren't really helpful when looking at the situation of the country you actually plan to give birth in.
Midwife education, equipment available for midwifes, experience with homebirths, cooperation between hospitals and homebirth midwifes, hospital transfer times, homebirth regulations, and so on - standards in general can vary widely and influence the outcome.
There is a huge difference between a homebirth in Uganda and in Great Britain, but also still a big difference between a homebirth in the Netherlands and in the US.

I found this pdf an interesting read as it touches the subject of midwife education in the US as well which studies are generally used when talking about the "safety" of homebirth in the US. It's a long read but maybe you'll find it interesting as well.

http://www.honestmidwife.com/download-pdf-2/
 

Yes, you have to be more careful in the U.S. and look at the level of training your particular midwife received. Unfortunately we have an uber-libertarian approach here to a lot of things (homeschooling, religion, etc) in some states, and a strong Bible Belt contingent, and that leads to dubious qualifications for, say, therapists, teachers, and midwives in some respects. As long as you know where and how they were educated, it shouldn't be a problem. 

Our medical care in general also has a lot of issues compared to other developed countries, though, due to health care costs and insurance problems, vastly varied access to care, etc. That's partly why it's so hard to have conversations about this, because every insurance plan and every region has such different kinds and quality of care. We also have very high maternal death rates in hospitals in certain states (Texas, for example) compared to some other countries due in part to pro life laws about what is considered "abortion" and procedures that require state approval in some cases (like removing an unviable fetus that doesn't fall under one of the "approved" categories), which puts women at risk. Some argue that our love of c sections is also partly to blame, as c section does increase the risk of maternal mortality, but widespread obesity, older mothers, heart issues and huge disparities in access to care due to race and poverty are also at play:

http://time.com/4508369/why-u-s-women-still-die-during-childbirth/

http://healthjournalism.org/blog/2014/05/data-shines-a-light-on-c-sections-maternal-mortality/

[FakePigtails]

3 hours ago, Joyleaf said:

Considering studies about homebirth:
Studies from other countries aren't really helpful when looking at the situation of the country you actually plan to give birth in.
Midwife education, equipment available for midwifes, experience with homebirths, cooperation between hospitals and homebirth midwifes, hospital transfer times, homebirth regulations, and so on - standards in general can vary widely and influence the outcome.
There is a huge difference between a homebirth in Uganda and in Great Britain, but also still a big difference between a homebirth in the Netherlands and in the US.

I found this pdf an interesting read as it touches the subject of midwife education in the US as well which studies are generally used when talking about the "safety" of homebirth in the US. It's a long read but maybe you'll find it interesting as well.

http://www.honestmidwife.com/download-pdf-2/
 

I'd read most of that document before but not the parts of her website where she discusses Cytotec being administered illegally and without the patient's consent. That led me to this and omgggg *crosses legs*. That's terrifying, and I don't know how women are supposed to determine how to avoid these situations if they're considering giving birth at home or a birth center (not attached to a hospital). 

[SweetFellowshipper]

8 minutes ago, FakePigtails said:

I'd read most of that document before but not the parts of her website where she discusses Cytotec being administered illegally and without the patient's consent. That led me to this and omgggg *crosses legs*. That's terrifying, and I don't know how women are supposed to determine how to avoid these situations if they're considering giving birth at home or a birth center (not attached to a hospital). 

That's horrible. When I'm feeling morbid, I look up stats about obstetric violence and what some term "birth rape" or birth trauma (the less controversial term). 

It's horrifying:

http://www.may28.org/obstetric-violence/

[FakePigtails]

Just now, SweetFellowshipper said:

That's horrible. When I'm feeling morbid, I look up stats about obstetric violence and what some term "birth rape" or birth trauma (the less controversial term). 

It's horrifying:

http://www.may28.org/obstetric-violence/

I don't think playing the "it happens in hospitals too" card is at all appropriate here. If nothing else, there are multiple mechanisms for medical professionals in hospitals to be reported and disciplined. That's not the case for CPMs and other direct-entry/lay midwives.

[SweetFellowshipper]

8 minutes ago, FakePigtails said:

I don't think playing the "it happens in hospitals too" card is at all appropriate here. If nothing else, there are multiple mechanisms for medical professionals in hospitals to be reported and disciplined. That's not the case for CPMs and other direct-entry/lay midwives.

I wasn't, it is all obstetric violence (the site I posted clarifies that it can be from *any* medical provider) and "birth trauma" in my mind.

And unfortunately, no, doctors and midwives alike are actually disciplined for obstetric violence about as often as actual rapists are. Not all that often. In both situations you are fairly powerless. With an unqualified midwife, you have very little recourse. And the hospitals have an entire legal team, waivers, and plenty of "caps" on lawsuits to protect them-- not much power there either. 

[FakePigtails]

56 minutes ago, SweetFellowshipper said:

I wasn't, it is all obstetric violence (the site I posted clarifies that it can be from *any* medical provider) and "birth trauma" in my mind.

And unfortunately, no, doctors and midwives alike are actually disciplined for obstetric violence about as often as actual rapists are. Not all that often. In both situations you are fairly powerless. With an unqualified midwife, you have very little recourse. And the hospitals have an entire legal team, waivers, and plenty of "caps" on lawsuits to protect them-- not much power there either. 

There are still state medical boards, which should have no incentive to keep a dangerous doctor or nurse around. Anyway, one of the big things in the links I posted was that the women giving birth didn't even know they were being given a drug and just thought they had some tea or Gatorade or evening primrose oil and coincidentally happened to go into labor or deliver very soon after and never knew anything illegal had happened - it wasn't a traumatic thing for them, just what they thought was their birth naturally speeding up or starting.

edit: To be clear, I do think it's a form of obstetric violence to administer medication without knowledge but it's not something that in this case would be perceived as such by the women without someone from the birth center or midwifery practice telling them (which is unlikely). As the bloggers describe it, the women were kept clueless and ended up happy with their experiences.

[Joyleaf]

28 minutes ago, SweetFellowshipper said:

I wasn't, it is all obstetric violence (the site I posted clarifies that it can be from *any* medical provider) and "birth trauma" in my mind.

And unfortunately, no, doctors and midwives alike are actually disciplined for obstetric violence about as often as actual rapists are. Not all that often. In both situations you are fairly powerless. With an unqualified midwife, you have very little recourse. And the hospitals have an entire legal team, waivers, and plenty of "caps" on lawsuits to protect them-- not much power there either. 

I wasn't really sure if I should answer to this. I had a hospital birth this year and things didn't go "perfect". But I understand, especially in hindsight, why things happened as they did. And while I might not have been... uhm... totally satisfied with the "birth experience", I'm very satisfied with the outcome.
So writing from this personal perspective certainly tints my outlook.
Still, I decided to answer and if I appear too emotional and/or aggressive, I apologize for that:

Hospitals and doctors carry insurance which at least gives you a chance of receiving money in case that your child is disabled for life (children die or suffer severe life long disabilities far more often during birth than the mothers).

There are homebirth midwifes who don't carry insurance. They just declare bankruptcy and move on.
And as they don't have to fear much of professional consequences (having their license revoked some practise in a different state or just practise without license as there is no controlling body) a dead baby or even a dead mother ("some babies just aren't meant to live" as they say in the homebirth fb groups) is just a bump in the road with no major professional or financial consequences.
For a doctor who loses his license it is far more difficult to practise illegally without notice.

I'm always very careful when I hear the term obstetric violence or "birth rape". I have seen women who adamantly refused treatment during birth that was absolutely necessary to to prevent harm from their babies. They were just panicked and in pain and couldn't be reached by reason.
And yes, doctors acted without the mother's consent to save the baby.
And yes, these women then claim obstetric violence (birth rape!).
And that's just something I personally can't get behind: If you don't want your baby to live and if you aren't willing to accept the necessary medical care for that, then why go through the whole trouble of pregnancy? Just for a "dream birth"?
Is that really what we want? The doctors just to stand by and let a little life perish so that the mother doesn't have to go through a episiotomy or c-section?

Of course things go wrong in hospital settings, of course doctors can be disrespectful, of course interventions can be violence.
There are powercrazed doctors (male and female) who just want this birth to be over so s/he can move on to something more interesting or go home because their shift ended 30 minutes ago.

But I suspect, and this is just a personal observation, that at least some of these women have never gone through a major "pain event" in their life before. They are just totally overwhelmed by what is happening and have no way to cope with it.
And they have the stories from the internet in their head about dream births with relaxed, strong mothers.
And the stories about unnecessary interventions by doctors.
So there is no way that this intervention is now necessary.
There is no way that their child is now in real danger.
There is no way that this birth is going wrong. It's all the doctors, it's all obstetric violence.
The doctor shouting at you so you realize what is going on? Rude and disrespectful.
The intervention that saved your child's life? Obstetric violence.

[Denim Jumper]

2 hours ago, SweetFellowshipper said:

Agree to disagree, my father in law works with medical malpractice lawsuits and it's a complex landscape that protects mostly doctors, not patients. There are many possible complications for mother and baby (including increases risk of death) from unnecessary birth interventions just as there are many possible complications from late interventions (or no interventions, though that's rare if they are at all unnecessary unless you are not using any medical professional a la Jill). Also, nurse midwives usually work in a hospital or in a birthing center with direct access to a hospital. The things you're mentioning where c sections are necessary but not done don't happen with midwives with that level of training, they happen with untrained "midwives" like the one Jill uses.

 

Anyway, the World Health Organization says c section rates should be 10-15% and that anything above increases rather than decreases health risks, and I trust them.

To the last paragraph, no, that is NOT what the WHO says if you read the full text of their position statement. We touched on this a few pages back, but their 10-15% target is based solely on maternal and perinatal death: in the developing world, the death rates decrease when the c-section rate increase to 10%, but does not continue to decrease when the rate goes over 15% (i.e. 15% appears to be the point of diminishing returns)

Reason being, women in the developing world, more often than not, do not have access to a safe, sterile clinic to have a c-section in. By the time they do reach whatever clinic is available (a combination of distance and cost concerns), the situation has already deteriored to the point of being a life or death. For them, c-section is infinitely more dangerous than a woman in an industrialized nation with modern hospitals.

WHO also states that because their 10-15% target only considers maternal and perinatal death rates, that target cannot be applied across the board because death is not the only factor or outcome to consider. 

[SilverBeach]

17 hours ago, SweetFellowshipper said:

Yes, but either way it's the patient who suffers. The litigiousness of the mainstream medical system is why some people are opting out for their prenatal care. Decisions should be made based on what is truly better for the patient and whether the benefits outweigh the real risks, not a possible lawsuit. It's a shame. 

Litigiousness is why so many gynes no longer provide obstetrical services. Malpractice and liability premiums are sky high. People expect perfect outcomes, which just isn't going to happen all the time because medical professionals are not God.  There are medically underserved areas in the USA, so there may not be as many options available. Too bad.

Obstetrical violence... horrible inflammatory term that AFAI am concerned would be used only by someone with an agenda.

[ClaraOswin]

I seem to read so many horror stories that it just makes me wonder if my doctor is just some magical unicorn or something. An actual human being who cares about his patients. Is that really so rare now?? Yes, I had a c-section. But he in no way MADE me do it, that's for sure. My situation is somewhat unique. I won't go into details but I was essentially given a choice...induction or c-section. My doctor didn't really steer me either direction. It was my decision. He just gave me all the facts on both options. Throughout my pregnancy, he was great. I didn't want to do genetic testing and he was fine with that decision. I didn't want to do cervical checks at the end to check for dilation. Again, he was fine with that. He obviously wasn't going to let me skip important things, like urine tests, group b strep test, etc. But he let me have a say in my care. He answered my 8 million questions at every appointment. He was only slightly rushed on a couple occasions (he had patients in labor upstairs.) He called me from home, after hours, to check on me (I had unexplained bleeding for a good chunk of my pregnancy.) He clearly cared about my well being and the well being of my child. He was always friendly. We'd chit-chat. He'd show me photos and videos of his son. He was generally just a nice guy.

I know there are crappy doctors out there. And crappy hospitals. But I guess I just assumed/hoped that they were NOT the norm. And that doctors like mine are more common. But I am beginning to wonder.

[SweetFellowshipper]

1 hour ago, SilverBeach said:

Litigiousness is why so many gynes no longer provide obstetrical services. Malpractice and liability premiums are sky high. People expect perfect outcomes, which just isn't going to happen all the time because medical professionals are not God.  There are medically underserved areas in the USA, so there may not be as many options available. Too bad.

Obstetrical violence... horrible inflammatory term that AFAI am concerned would be used only by someone with an agenda.

I think all violence against women should be taken seriously. To immediately call it inflammatory is to dismiss very real things that happen to women around the world. 

I don't assume fault on the part of the doctor OR the patient. But I will take women's many accounts of obstetric violence (which refers to any nonconsensual violence they suffer in childbirth, not just from hospitals) seriously and not assume they're just hysterical or incorrect. I think that is dangerous. Sometimes they are likely to be wrong or misinterpreting something that is necessary. Sometimes they have truly been violated or mistreated. I just don't assume the authority figure is the one in the right.

That's how forced sterilizations happened to thousands of women in the U.S. up until the 70s.

I've seen it in different situations with my husband, who is disabled and practitioners don't tend to listen to disabled folks. He knew a certain boot for his leg, which the ER said was broken along with his foot, would give him a pressure sore. He's fully employed and capable of speaking eloquently, but because he's a wheelchair user he was assumed to be incompetent and to have a caretaker. The nurses spoke to me instead of him, dismissed his concerns, and pushed him into wearing the boot. It gave him a pressure sore which required him to go to the wound clinic, which can be deadly for a quadriplegic, and the break in the leg turned out to be an old break that didn't require stabilization. Assumptions abound about people's bodies and ability to make choices based on informed consent. He's also received excellent medical care on other occasions. Many more occasions than anything has gone wrong! But that doesn't negate the ableism of *that* experience. 

Many women report being similarly dismissed or even restrained or penetrated against their will during childbirth, particularly indigenous women, queer and trans folks, poor women and women of color. Does this mean doctors are evil or always wrong, no. I just went to one yesterday. But does it mean that we need to speak out for patient autonomy and patient-centered care, take women's stories seriously, have patient advocates and speak about the reality of medical violence, especially towards women who are proven to get less quick treatment for the same amount of reported pain, in my opinion yes. The racial disparities in birth outcome also speak to an issue, IMO. Prejudice exists in the medical field just like everywhere else.

Do some of the incidents have no weight? Yes. Do some women just not understand what would be best? Yes. Absolutely! But the only way to separate those from real problematic incidents is to talk about them. I don't think it's inflammatory to call violence violence. There are going to be false accusations just like there are with rape or assault. It doesn't mean that rape and assault don't happen or don't deserve investigation. Black folks' stories of mistreatment by police and stories of forced sterilization in LA in the 60s and 70s seemed crazy and unlikely to a lot of people, who rationalized it and assumed the authorities were correct in the vast majority of situations, before they were found to be largely true. I think patients' stories are worth listening to.

 

[SilverBeach]

@ClaraOswin, my doc was so much like yours. I knew how kind and competent he was because he had been my gyne for ten years before I got pregnant. I don't think our experiences were that atypical, they just don't get talked about that much. People would rather read about bad experiences and horror stories.

[SilverBeach]

Are nonconsensual medical interventions really that common? I still think characterizing them as obstetrical violence is unfairly emotionally loading these events.

Of course I am against violence against women, I  am a woman, as is my daughter, sister, mother, and aunt. But violence has intent to harm, which I don't see in these situations. Of course, all women's stories are worth listening to, nothing to disagree with there.

I am Black, and yes, systematic police mistreatment was and largely is minimized by the dominant society. But just like I am Black and see the problem, I think women see the problems in the world of pregnancy and giving birth.

Agree to disagree.

We have a little saying here on FJ, that words have meaning. Inflammatory rhetoric adds nothing to a reasonable discussion. I never heard the term obstetrical violence before today, and I don't like it and won't be using it.  YMMV, and to each her own.

[FlamingFundie]

Dictionary.com:

"Violence:

noun

1.swift and intense force:

the violence of a storm.

2.rough or injurious physical force, action, or treatment:

to die by violence.

3.an unjust or unwarranted exertion of force or power, as against rights or laws:

to take over a government by violence.

4.

a violent act or proceeding.

5.rough or immoderate vehemence, as of feeling or language:

the violence of his hatred.

6.damage through distortion or unwarranted alteration:

to do editorial violence to a text."

[Ali]

7 hours ago, SilverBeach said:

Litigiousness is why so many gynes no longer provide obstetrical services. Malpractice and liability premiums are sky high. People expect perfect outcomes, which just isn't going to happen all the time because medical professionals are not God.  There are medically underserved areas in the USA, so there may not be as many options available. Too bad.

Obstetrical violence... horrible inflammatory term that AFAI am concerned would be used only by someone with an agenda.

This so much.

I was actually so angry reading this thread earlier when I encountered the talk of obstetrical violence that I had to step away.

It is ridiculous and naive to think that birth will be easy and without complications. It works out well for some women. They should call themselves blessed and stop pushing that expectation that it will be the same for others. Birth is unpredictable. Many don't have it work out according to their birth plan. What matters is a healthy mom and a healthy baby.

I have two healthy children because I had enough wisdom to listen to advise from my doctors each time. I had two C-sections. I attempted to have a VBAC and there were complications. If I had ignored my doctor's advise, I could have had a still born baby instead of a healthy son. I am glad I did not think I was an expert on birth because I had read some Encyclopedias and surfed the web. Doctors are not all knowing . They weigh the risks based on the data they have and make recommendations. In hindsight, they might sometimes make different decisions.

[Ali]

8 hours ago, Joyleaf said:

I'm always very careful when I hear the term obstetric violence or "birth rape". I have seen women who adamantly refused treatment during birth that was absolutely necessary to to prevent harm from their babies. They were just panicked and in pain and couldn't be reached by reason.
And yes, doctors acted without the mother's consent to save the baby.
And yes, these women then claim obstetric violence (birth rape!).
And that's just something I personally can't get behind: If you don't want your baby to live and if you aren't willing to accept the necessary medical care for that, then why go through the whole trouble of pregnancy? Just for a "dream birth"?
Is that really what we want? The doctors just to stand by and let a little life perish so that the mother doesn't have to go through a episiotomy or c-section?

I think you nailed why some are claiming "birth rape." I think we need to let go of the ideal of a prefect birth and focus on the outcome, which is what matters in the long run.

[WhatWouldJohnCrichtonDo?]

10 hours ago, SweetFellowshipper said:

That's horrible. When I'm feeling morbid, I look up stats about obstetric violence and what some term "birth rape" or birth trauma (the less controversial term). 

It's horrifying:

http://www.may28.org/obstetric-violence/

Did anyone else read all the way to the bottom of that site?

Quote

South Africa:

Abuse in maternity facilities is common in South Africa. South African women describe verbal abuse, including being ridiculed while pleading for assistance or pain relief, and being berated for “messing up” when they bled on the floor during labor. Many are later forced to clean up their own blood. According to a report from Health Partners International it has become so normal that some nurses don’t understand why it is a problem to slap or shout at women in labor.

(my bold)

Or this part?

Quote

Kenya:

The notorious case of a woman being beaten by the nursing staff and forced to give birth on the concrete floor at the Bungoma District Hospital in Kenya, making national headlines in 2013 is a stark example of the lack of dignity and respect in the maternity care sector. The case was documented by chance by another patient, witnessing the inhumane treatment of the woman in labour and captured it on her cell phone.

(my bold)

These examples don't sound like a woman who was expecting an idealized version of birth and was disappointed by reality. They sound like violence. I'd be interested in finding more about this topic from sources I recognize.

[SilverBeach]

5 minutes ago, WhatWouldJohnCrichtonDo? said:

Did anyone else read all the way to the bottom of that site?

Or this part?

These examples don't sound like a woman who was expecting an idealized version of birth and was disappointed by reality. They sound like violence. I'd be interested in finding more about this topic from sources I recognize.

I responded from my perspective as an American with respect to American obstetrical practices. I imagine that abusive health care practices are not limited to women about to give birth in the countries named. There are countries where if the family doesn't bring food, the hospitalized person doesn't eat. There are also countries where FGM is practiced (speaking of violence against women), leading to many complications with pregnancy and childbirth that are not adequately addressed. Women suffering the stated abuses during childbirth are unfortunately part of much larger sociological issues, the main one being poverty. Yes, it is sad. By comparison, the poorest American women have access, for the most part, to standard obstetrical care through Medicaid. 

 

[feministxtian]

My first child was delivered by an intern...I ended up with an episiotomy that took 32 stitches to sew up. I felt every bit of it. He literally laid scissors against my child's head and cut. I STILL have problems with the scar from that...34 years later. My water broke and without explaining a damn thing to me, I got an IV needle shoved in my arm, hooked up to pitocin, had an internal monitor shoved up my vagina and screwed into my baby's head.....ALL with out any of it being explained to me. Then, to add insult to injury, manual placenta removal without even a sedative. 

Second birth...midwife in a military hospital. No pitocin, no IV, no episiotomy. Baby had a bigger head than the first one. 

Third birth...OB/GYN who LOVED delivering babies. Never rushed...no cervical checks at the end of pregnancy, and I think three while I was in labor. The initial check when I got to the hospital, a check an hour later to see if I was progressing and then one right before I started actively pushing. That brat had an even bigger head than the first two and nary a skidmark. 

My first labor and birth were horrid. 

[Granwych]

On ‎12‎/‎30‎/‎2016 at 10:50 AM, ClaraOswin said:

If it helps, many petite women still have a wide enough pelvis or whatever to give birth without complications. And a larger woman can actually have a narrow pelvis. I'm not sure you can really tell just by looking at someone.

If there are no complications, a vaginal delivery has a much easier recovery than a c-section. A c-section is no walk in the park, that's for sure.

I must be one of the minority who healed fast after a C-section--wychling was born on a Monday, we would normally have gone home on Thursday, but wychling developed jaundice and was kept till Saturday(I stayed, too.)  I was given the okay to drive the week after the birth.

 

[Granwych]

Another interesting fact here:  There are two hospitals within, say, about 15 miles of each other in my area.  One will allow VBACs in most cases where the other will not.  The hospital where wychling delivered is the one that will; however, one of the most experienced L & D nurses there told her that if she had another baby that was over 5 lbs, she would be much better off delivering via C-section.  Grandwych (7lbs 9 oz) was born after a 12 hr labor with failure to descend, and thankfully everything ended well.

[Joyleaf]

6 hours ago, WhatWouldJohnCrichtonDo? said:

Did anyone else read all the way to the bottom of that site?

My (far too long) answer was referring to the situation in countries like Germany and the US. I should have clarified that.

But yes, I looked at the bottom of the page and the occurrences as retold there are why the term "birth rape", when being used for every uncomfortable procedure in the vaginal area that they would have wanted to avoid during childbirth, just doesn't sit well with me. How about applying to things more akin to sexual assault during childbirth. Like massaging a woman's vagina and breast during childbirth with the goal to sexually stimulate her even if that's not what she wants at that moment.

[WhatWouldJohnCrichtonDo?]

@SilverBeach, @Joyleaf, and everyone else--I realized awhile after I posted that the phrase, "Did anyone else read to the bottom," could seem harsher, or snottier than I meant it to. I hope I didn't sound that way.

I don't know that I understand why the term "birth rape" would be used. I would think the phrase "obstetric violence" (the phrase that site used) is more explanatory. Most women's birth experiences in the US, Canada, the UK, most of Europe, and Australia are probably a far cry from those examples I cited. (Although, @feministxtian's first 2 births sound traumatic.) But any time that a culture of violence exists, we need to address it. Sexual violence, obstetric violence, domestic violence, child abuse--none of those are ever okay. I just wonder how we do that.

[Joyleaf]

13 hours ago, SweetFellowshipper said:

I think all violence against women should be taken seriously. To immediately call it inflammatory is to dismiss very real things that happen to women around the world. 

I don't assume fault on the part of the doctor OR the patient. But I will take women's many accounts of obstetric violence (which refers to any nonconsensual violence they suffer in childbirth, not just from hospitals) seriously and not assume they're just hysterical or incorrect. I think that is dangerous. Sometimes they are likely to be wrong or misinterpreting something that is necessary. Sometimes they have truly been violated or mistreated. I just don't assume the authority figure is the one in the right.

Should violence against women be taken seriously? Surprise: Yes.

Maybe the real question might be: How far does the autonomy of women in childbirth go when interventions are thought to be necessary to protect the baby from harm?
(I say "thought" because in hindsight you sometimes know better.)
Because if you come down far on the side of the baby that might lead to non-consensual violence.
Having your belly cut open for a c-section you don't want is non-consensual violence IMO.

And the more women are expecting a perfect birth (again only referring to the part of the Western world I have experience with) the more any intervention that seems to prevent this birth experience is non-consensual and violence.
On one hand we need to train doctors and nurses to be sensitive and empathic with women in labor.
On the other hand we need to educate women that the vast majority of interventions happens to prevent bad outcomes for themselves and even more often for their baby.
And that during an emergency the "authority figure" might not be nice and understanding but rushed and curt but maybe still "right". (Again, in hindsight you know more.)

Is it OK to scream at women, to handle them roughly, to belittle them, to hurt them unnecessarily and so on - no!
Is the way to avoid this to get them out of the hospital to a setting where they and their babies are at greater risk to come to harm (statistics differ from country to country)? For me, that's another no.

[WhatWouldJohnCrichtonDo?]

I went into my first labor with hopes, but no real expectations of how things would happen. I knew I didn't have any way of knowing how things would go. I went into my second labor with the understanding that it wouldn't necessarily be like my first. I wish we could stop having unrealistic expectations. That's actually one reason I don't tell my birth stories much; I don't want to sound like I'm bragging about how well it went or give unrealistic expectations to moms-to-be. Sigh.