so one in three women or babies will die? because that's our c-section rate.
i think it's extremely difficult to separate out the women who would have been perfectly safe in a different model of care (such as the one used by homebirth midwives and birth centers, here and in europe), but who fall into danger because of inappropriately used interventions in our system of care, and determine whether they are truly being saved. what are they being saved from?
some drs feel very comfortable with routine pitocin and epidural usage for example, because of course they have the technology readily available to "save" these moms and babies if the pit and epi put them into danger (which they quite often do). so the mom is saved. but did birth itself, or did technology put her into danger in the first place.
i do not dispute that some women and babies will always die during pregnancy and birth. we can not make it perfect. no amount of technology will make birth perfectly safe for everyone. and more technology, wantonly used, will not make it safer (the u.s. used to x-ray everyone during pregnancy, to determine pelvic adequacy for birth - then we "discovered" it harmed babies, and also wasn't an accurate test anyways). c-section is more dangerous than vaginal birth. simple technologies, like good prenatal care and especially excellent nutrition, anti-hemorrage drugs and antibiotics, as well as safe emergency procedures (like surgery) used rarely, are what saves moms and babies. none of this should imply that birth is inherently dangerous, to the degree which we have been led to believe.
a century and half ago a main cause of maternal death was child-bed fever, many times caused by drs' stubborn refusal to simply wash their hands after they had autopsied (even after desperate attempts to convince them that they were spreading contagion and causing death). they simply could not believe they were doing something wrong. death rates in hospitals soared, while death rates at home remained stable (and yes, high, because of lack of the above mentioned simple technologies).
Comment Reply
so one in three women or babies will die? because that's our c-section rate.
i think it's extremely difficult to separate out the women who would have been perfectly safe in a different model of care (such as the one used by homebirth midwives and birth centers, here and in europe), but who fall into danger because of inappropriately used interventions in our system of care, and determine whether they are truly being saved. what are they being saved from?
some drs feel very comfortable with routine pitocin and epidural usage for example, because of course they have the technology readily available to "save" these moms and babies if the pit and epi put them into danger (which they quite often do). so the mom is saved. but did birth itself, or did technology put her into danger in the first place.
i do not dispute that some women and babies will always die during pregnancy and birth. we can not make it perfect. no amount of technology will make birth perfectly safe for everyone. and more technology, wantonly used, will not make it safer (the u.s. used to x-ray everyone during pregnancy, to determine pelvic adequacy for birth - then we "discovered" it harmed babies, and also wasn't an accurate test anyways). c-section is more dangerous than vaginal birth. simple technologies, like good prenatal care and especially excellent nutrition, anti-hemorrage drugs and antibiotics, as well as safe emergency procedures (like surgery) used rarely, are what saves moms and babies. none of this should imply that birth is inherently dangerous, to the degree which we have been led to believe.
a century and half ago a main cause of maternal death was child-bed fever, many times caused by drs' stubborn refusal to simply wash their hands after they had autopsied (even after desperate attempts to convince them that they were spreading contagion and causing death). they simply could not believe they were doing something wrong. death rates in hospitals soared, while death rates at home remained stable (and yes, high, because of lack of the above mentioned simple technologies).
July 19, 2008 - 9:23amThis Comment
Reply