The birth world is a mirror of larger, weirder, scarier things in our culture -- about how we regard women, mothers, mother earth. When the mother is harmed, how can she care for her babies, and how does a society of motherless children -- not nursed, given no breast milk, knowing no comfort but left to cry it out -- how do they function? I feel like we are a society of motherless children, separated from love, from our ability to be self referring, separated from trust in our own instincts and trust that we will be cared for, by our mothers, and by extension -- by God. I believe that how children experience their mother in early life is how they experience God. If you can not trust your mother, if she does not care for you, then you do not trust God will care for you or that your needs will ever be met. And people that do not trust that they will be cared for act crazy in lots of ways.Mother-Earth, that is a very deep idea. It is a powerful thing to be able to intervene and break the bonds between mother & child, and take away the feminine power of the mother. It is the fundamental sickness in our world to me. I think the strangely out of proportion opposition to midwives -- the venomous, irrational hatred of midwives -- is a reaction to that deep seated, underlying issue.
When women have control of birth, when mothers and midwives are in control of something as important as birth, we hold the power to something that can change society completely: LOVE. We learn love at home. On a body level we get that love or lack or love from our families, and the quality of the love we get in our family is the quality of love we have to share the world. I think opposition to midwives is an old archetypal battle of male vs female energies, of warring culture vs loving culture. I think that with out even consciously understanding their motives and reactions people in power want to stop the mother, and they want to stop the midwives. And I think its why so many women are attracted to birth work, is because we suspect that we are doing more than helping women have babies -- we are healing a rift in the planetary consciousness when a mother-baby makes it through all that with their instincts intact and in love.
Wednesday, October 3, 2007
The birth world is a mirror
This is a reflection from my friend Heidi, a midwife.
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
Challenging the unchallengeable
Men are overawed, not to say terrified, by the ability of women to produce babies. (Asked by a lady intellectual to summarize the differences between the sexes, another bishop responded, "Madam, I cannot conceive.") It gives women an unchallengeable authority.
This excerpt appears in a dreadful Vanity Fair article by Christopher Hitchens. It offers a bit of insight into another reason that people seek to control us by controlling our births. We lose this "unchallengeable authority" if we are unable to deliver babies on our own, but only with the help of a medical professional, surrounded by other medical professionals and hooked up to machines.
He goes on to quote Kipling:
So it comes that Man, the coward,
when he gathers to confer
With his fellow-braves in council,
dare not leave a place for her.
Substitute "the medical establishment" for Man, and let "her" refer to the midwife.
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
Why doctors are God
The medicalization of the birth process is supported by the extremely high esteem in which our society holds medical doctors. The "doctors are God" complex causes women to accept their obstetrician's assertions and recommendations without question. This leads to uninformed decisions, instead of informed consent, and can cause women to take avoidable risks and to feel that they have no control over the birth process. Women are told that their bodies are inadequate, incapable of delivering a baby without a doctor's assistance, and they believe it. A pregnant woman says to another, "If your doctor says that baby's ready, then by golly it's ready!" Women have unquestioning faith in their obstetricians.
An article in Policy Review, "How the West Really Lost God," suggests one source of this "doctors are God" complex. The article discusses how traditional family structure encourages religion. One explanation for this: the experience of birth. Birth is "an event transcendental as no other... a moment of communion with something larger than oneself... [part of] the critical foundational bond of human beings." The article puts forth birth as a religious experience, or at least an experience opening people's minds to religious concepts. Perhaps the leading role of obstetricians in this profound moment feeds directly into our esteem of medical doctors. It seems likely that the medicalization of birth is a major contributor to the "doctors are God" complex.
Perhaps this feedback loop, "doctors are God because we need them to give birth, and we need them to give birth because doctors are God," explains some of the vehemence with which medical trade unions oppose midwifery. Take the doctor out of the birth process, and women will realize that their bodies are capable of more than they ever believed. A midwife supports a woman while she delivers a baby -- an obstetrician "delivers" the baby for the woman. If our own bodies are capable of this amazing process, where else might conventional medicine be unnecessary? Midwifery care introduces women to gentle remedies, safe for pregnancy and effective for many common complaints. I wonder whether women who use a professional or lay midwife are less likely to patronize medical doctors and conventional medicine for the rest of their lives? Perhaps there is more turf at stake here for the doctors than just birth.
While many (probably most) doctors are not in the profession primarily for the prestige, it seems likely that the doctors who rise through the ranks of trade unions like the AMA and ACOG are motivated by the feeling of power. They want society to elevate doctors in higher and higher esteem. Acknowledging that women can give birth without a doctor present cuts into a powerful strengthener of our perception of doctors as omniscient and omnipotent. Some medical doctors will go to any lengths to deny that women give birth.
An article in Policy Review, "How the West Really Lost God," suggests one source of this "doctors are God" complex. The article discusses how traditional family structure encourages religion. One explanation for this: the experience of birth. Birth is "an event transcendental as no other... a moment of communion with something larger than oneself... [part of] the critical foundational bond of human beings." The article puts forth birth as a religious experience, or at least an experience opening people's minds to religious concepts. Perhaps the leading role of obstetricians in this profound moment feeds directly into our esteem of medical doctors. It seems likely that the medicalization of birth is a major contributor to the "doctors are God" complex.
Perhaps this feedback loop, "doctors are God because we need them to give birth, and we need them to give birth because doctors are God," explains some of the vehemence with which medical trade unions oppose midwifery. Take the doctor out of the birth process, and women will realize that their bodies are capable of more than they ever believed. A midwife supports a woman while she delivers a baby -- an obstetrician "delivers" the baby for the woman. If our own bodies are capable of this amazing process, where else might conventional medicine be unnecessary? Midwifery care introduces women to gentle remedies, safe for pregnancy and effective for many common complaints. I wonder whether women who use a professional or lay midwife are less likely to patronize medical doctors and conventional medicine for the rest of their lives? Perhaps there is more turf at stake here for the doctors than just birth.
While many (probably most) doctors are not in the profession primarily for the prestige, it seems likely that the doctors who rise through the ranks of trade unions like the AMA and ACOG are motivated by the feeling of power. They want society to elevate doctors in higher and higher esteem. Acknowledging that women can give birth without a doctor present cuts into a powerful strengthener of our perception of doctors as omniscient and omnipotent. Some medical doctors will go to any lengths to deny that women give birth.
Friday, June 29, 2007
My rights or your turf?
The Missouri State Medical Association has sued to keep midwifery illegal in Missouri. They challenge the constitutionality of the amendment that legalizes CPMs, claiming that midwifery is not related to the subject of the bill, which is health insurance. The medical association makes ludicrous claims about the meaning of the amendment, expounding about brick layers and abortions.
The amendment legalizes Certified Professional Midwives. It does this by overriding any other law disallowing people holding tocological (that means "birth-related") certification from an accredited organization. Only Certified Professional Midwives meet the criteria in the amendment. They are only legalized to practice according to their certification, which does NOT include (as MSMA claims) "c-sections, epidural anesthesia, and even terminations." The amendment does not legalize brick layers or professional golfers, as MSMA claims. They are spouting blatant falsehoods to turn people against this piece of legislation.
The amendment legalizing Certified Professional Midwives is not the ideal piece of legislation for anyone's purpose. Even midwifery advocates preferred a more straightforward bill, which regulates CPMs in much more detail. Such a bill was filibustered by the MSMA's pet Missouri Senator, Chuck Graham. The opponents refuse to negotiate or discuss reasonable legislation that will remove midwives from the category of felons. They will trample on my rights to protect their turf, their legally enforced monopoly on prenatal and birth care.
The amendment legalizes Certified Professional Midwives. It does this by overriding any other law disallowing people holding tocological (that means "birth-related") certification from an accredited organization. Only Certified Professional Midwives meet the criteria in the amendment. They are only legalized to practice according to their certification, which does NOT include (as MSMA claims) "c-sections, epidural anesthesia, and even terminations." The amendment does not legalize brick layers or professional golfers, as MSMA claims. They are spouting blatant falsehoods to turn people against this piece of legislation.
The amendment legalizing Certified Professional Midwives is not the ideal piece of legislation for anyone's purpose. Even midwifery advocates preferred a more straightforward bill, which regulates CPMs in much more detail. Such a bill was filibustered by the MSMA's pet Missouri Senator, Chuck Graham. The opponents refuse to negotiate or discuss reasonable legislation that will remove midwives from the category of felons. They will trample on my rights to protect their turf, their legally enforced monopoly on prenatal and birth care.
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
Midwives lack medical training
Here in Missouri, a bill passed the legislature with an amendment that will allow certified professional midwives (CPMs) to practice. The governor has stated that he intends to sign it. This issue is all over the news. The medical associations voice their objections, warning that midwives are not medically trained.
CPMs are not medically trained. Is this a lack of training, or an asset? These midwives are extensively trained in normal birth. Birth is not inherently a medical event. The first priority of the midwife's training is to know when the mother and baby could benefit from medical intervention. That's when she calls in the doctors and nurses. That's when medical training comes in handy. In the other 90% of births, the midwife does not lack any training. The absence of a medical background helps her support the mother through the birth process. Her extensive training helps her to prevent the birth from becoming a medical event, even as it reveals whether medical intervention will be beneficial.
Some people want to compare our birth results with countries who only have midwives as an option, no hospitals or doctors available. See how much better doctors are, they say! No one denies how fantastic the doctors and hospitals are when they're needed. They're essential for good outcomes in at least 1:20 births. But countries who have both options available, who use midwives for normal pregnancies and birth and call in obstetricians when they're needed, have the best birth outcomes of all!
I want to live in one of those countries. And I don't intend to move.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SIRS-hez-qg
CPMs are not medically trained. Is this a lack of training, or an asset? These midwives are extensively trained in normal birth. Birth is not inherently a medical event. The first priority of the midwife's training is to know when the mother and baby could benefit from medical intervention. That's when she calls in the doctors and nurses. That's when medical training comes in handy. In the other 90% of births, the midwife does not lack any training. The absence of a medical background helps her support the mother through the birth process. Her extensive training helps her to prevent the birth from becoming a medical event, even as it reveals whether medical intervention will be beneficial.
Some people want to compare our birth results with countries who only have midwives as an option, no hospitals or doctors available. See how much better doctors are, they say! No one denies how fantastic the doctors and hospitals are when they're needed. They're essential for good outcomes in at least 1:20 births. But countries who have both options available, who use midwives for normal pregnancies and birth and call in obstetricians when they're needed, have the best birth outcomes of all!
I want to live in one of those countries. And I don't intend to move.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SIRS-hez-qg
Friday, May 18, 2007
Birth outcomes
Yesterday I flipped through The Economist's "Pocket World in Figures 2007." It lists the highest and lowest infant mortality rates by country. The list lowest mortality rates lists the top 25 countries. The US doesn't make the list.
We spend more on maternity care than any other country in the world, by far. Why aren't we in the top 25 of infant survival rates? We are doing something wrong.
We spend more on maternity care than any other country in the world, by far. Why aren't we in the top 25 of infant survival rates? We are doing something wrong.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
