While I sympathize with many of
Goer’s points throughout her response to Paul Gawande’s article, I think that
many people will ultimately sympathize with the messages from Gawande. For me at least, the story of Rourke
really told the story. She went
into her pregnancy looking for a completely natural childbirth, with no surgery
or even pain medication. While
everything seemed normal for her leading up to her trip to the hospital,
nothing expected happened upon her arrival. After being sent home once then doing her best to ignore
stabbing pain for 2.5 hours, she returned to the hospital only to be told that
she was not far enough along yet, even though her contractions were at the
right times. As complications
stacked up, she eventually asked for an epidural because the pain became too
much for her to handle. As the
hours wore on, her baby made limited progress, causing her more and more pain
and more medical interventions, including the administration of drugs to
strengthen contractions and raise the chances of a natural childbirth. However, it soon became apparent that it
simply wasn’t going to happen naturally.
When offered a cesarean section the first time, Rourke turned it down
immediately, preferring the ideal of a natural birth. In time though, Rourke eventually succumbed to the fact that
the “unbearable pain” was making her “stuporous.” When offered a cesarean section again, she accepted, recognizing
that it was the best way forward, even though she had come into the pregnancy
wanting it to be as natural as possible.
The conclusion to the Rourke story
speaks volumes to me. While Goer
may have valid arguments for many of Gawande’s points, the fact remains that
the main goal of childbirth is to have a healthy child. Someone, like Rourke, may fiercely want
to have a natural childbirth, yet in times of need, it’s extremely nice to have
the other options on standby.
While not all medical professionals would agree with many of the
methods, the fact remains that they were developed to make the process easier
and more successful. Whether or
not the results mirror the intentions is a different issue, but if you are a
mother and you are told there is only one option to save your child, the odds
are astronomical that you would take that option, unless it somehow could cause
you harm. For me, this is really
the base point. If a natural
childbirth works out and everything goes to plan – wonderful. If it doesn’t, then it’s certainly very
nice to have other options available to help save the lives of the baby and the
mother.
Stuart makes a very similar point to the ones I made in my blog post. The end goal of delivering a baby is for the newborn to be born into this world in perfect health/condition. Additionally, the safety of the mother is imperative and any medical assistance that is needed for these two goals to be accomplished must be taken. I, too, understand Goer's points that medical intervention can sometimes be unnecessary and cause damages to the mother or the newborn, but the technology and medical advances in the field do help tremendously. As Stuart says, "If a natural childbirth works out and everything go to plan- wonder. If it doesn't then it's certainly very nice to have other options available to help save the lives of the baby and the mother." This is the point that needs to be emphasized and I don't think that there are many other arguments that can disagree with this stance.
ReplyDeleteStuart - I completely agree with the points you make about Rourke and the importance around her experience in childbirth. I think it's hard to really put ourselves in these women's shoes by imagine what the experience must be like to have a baby. I agree with your statement that having options is key. I have a hard time understanding why women are given such grief for swaying from their birth plan. They obviously have no control over what is happening or going to happen, so to put an extra burden on what is already a stressful situation seems completely irrelevant. What is important is that those who choose natural childbirth have the right to do so, and if things go according to plan, then good for them, but if not, even knowing there are alternate options should be a relief and celebrated rather than frowned upon.
ReplyDeleteObviously, I agree with the above commentary that it's incredibly difficult for any of us to put ourselves in Rourke's position, since each childbirth is different and it's very hard to equate an individual circumstance with an entire article. However, I do tend to think that in a time of crisis, the commonly accepted position is to welcome the options that modern medicine and technology have been able to afford us. Previously, the decision was: either the child's life or the mother's. Now, when so many women have the luxury to schedule their birthing dates when it is most convenient for them, childbirth is routine and, in a way, the struggle is taken for granted. I think that perhaps the most controversial is the decision whether or not to use the aid of drugs and/or surgery in achieving an effective childbirth, but again, we really have no experience with or right to judge any new mother's decision in these cases.
ReplyDeleteI'm going to agree with Alana on this one. I think that health is of the utmost important, but there is something to be said about the routine, assembly-line aspect of childbirth in the modern age that makes it so impersonal. Aside from the woman and child's physical health, the woman's emotional health should be taken into account. Many women who veer off their intended child birth plan feel like they have failed as a mother. This might be a fleeting feeling in the moment, but for some women it sticks with them for a very long time. We can attribute this, in part, to the pressures our society put on mothers that make them feel this way in the first place. Maybe we have to change our expectations of a healthy child birth, but until then, a woman's emotional health should be taken into consideration with her physical health.
ReplyDelete