Re: The Industrialization of Childbirth

On February 15^th, 1989 at about 7pm, my mother went into labor. As it was 5 weeks early than the predicted date, my parents were both astonished and immediately headed to the hospital. About 4 hours later, the doctor told my mother that the umbilical cord was wrapped around my neck, effectively cutting off the flow of air. He performed an emergency cesarean section on my mother, and after two long weeks (for my parents) in the neonatal unit at Lenox Hill Hospital, I went home a healthy baby boy. Had the doctor intervened, I certainly would have suffocated to death in the womb.

Granted I am biased on this topic, but I must disagree with Goer’s sweeping generalization that obstetric intervention is inherently a bad idea. Such techniques as cesarean sections have been shown to save the lives of children whose mothers experience labor complications. Yes, there are definitely times when doctors unnecessarily intervene for a variety of insufficient causes; but, often times, doctors intervene because they need to save the child and/or mother’s life or because they simply aren’t sure and would rather be safe than sorry (obviously operating under the assumption that intervention is reliably safer). While Goer highlights numerous sources of statistics that indicate that intervention is far riskier, I feel that she is oversimplifying the gravity and pressure of a birthing situation. When a doctor is in the operating, he/she must do what he/she believes will result in the best outcome for both the child and the mother. If intervention means saving the child, but risking the life of the mother, I think every mother would choose intervention. The health of the child must be viewed as paramount to all other possible outcomes.