Basic HTML Version
CHILDREN
(Continuedfrom page 14)
They act as if pregnancy is a nine–
month disease that needs their help
to be resolved." The words of a
spokesman for theCalifornia Medi–
ca! Association on why his organi–
zation opposes home birth are
revealing: "Our position is that
there are so many things which can
go wrong that the procedure should
take place in accredited facilities."
"The procedure"! A
mechanical
word for a
natural
event, reflecting
the mentality of orthodox obste–
tries! As California State Senator
Barry Keene has noted, sorne doc–
tors believe "that childbirth is a
medica! event and not a natural
event that's been going on for thou–
sands of years."
Backlash
The movement toward natural
childbirth gained growing
popu–
lar
support throughout the 1970s.
Yet sometíme in the late 1970s
(or early 1980s depending with
whom you speak), "alternative"
childbirth began to come under
severe attack from the "establish–
ment' ' in obstetrical medicine.
T he challenge to alternative birth
is not merely an American trend,
though it is centered in the United
States. Medica! statistician David
Stewart declares the medica! back–
lash is "global," noting that physi–
cian attendance ata home birth has
been labeled "unbecoming con–
duct" in Canada.
The l nternational Association
of Parents and Professionals for
Safe Alternatives in Chi ldbirth
(NAPSAC) cites an estímate
that at least 90 percent of physi–
cians who support homebirth or
other nonstandardized childbirth
are currently facing sorne sort of
trouble-investigation by medica!
boards, revocation of hospital
privileges, cancellation of insur–
ance, or, most drastic, suspension
of their licenses.
Recently, statistician Stewart,
who is head of NAPSAC, noted in
early 1981 that "in the last
l\\IO
months, ten doctors in ten states lost
their licenses or were threatened
with malpractice insurance cancel–
lations or loss of their hospital privi–
leges because they do home births"
(quoted in
Los Angeles Times,
February 27, 1981 ).
In California, where the attack
is in full swing, Ginny' Cassidy-
Moving Childbirth From Delivery
Room to Operating Room
Brinn of the Los Angeles Femi–
nist Women's Health Center
observes that "everybody who
attends home births around the
state is being harassed."
The harassment in sorne cases
seems particularly mean spirited,
directed at any doctor, nurse or
midwife who has anything to do
with home or alternative birth
regardless of any instance of
supposed negligence or incompe–
tence.
Thus
NAPSAC News
(Spring 81) reports that one Chi–
cago M.O. , who doesn't even do
out-of-hospital births, has been
harassed because he does serve as
a back-up for physicians who do
engage in home births!
In San Diego, California, the
local medica! society, according
to the Association for Childbirth
at Home, lnternational (ACH
1),
has denied membership to doc–
tors attending home births.
ACH
1
also reports that a number
of doctors and hospitals
deliberate–
ly deny prenatal care to women
p/anning home births.
One ACHI
survey ín Houston, Texas, in 1978
found 20 obstetricians who refused
prenatal care to such women.
ACHl also reports that a local
obstetrical society in Franklin
C
esarean sections have
become increasingly
likely in standardized hospi–
tal births. In the last decade
there has been a virtual ex–
plosion of cesarean opera–
tions.
a mistake when He didn' t
pul a zipper in' a woman's
belly," charges Dr. Robert
Mendelsohn. a physician
prominent in the alternative
birth movement.
ing," states Dr. Ralph
Gause. trustee of the Ameri–
can Foundation tor Maternal
and Child Health (quoted in
Ms.
magazine. October,
1978).
study that a doctor faces a
higher risk of a suit over ce–
sarean !han vaginal deliver–
ies. Besides malpractice.
there are other, little-admit–
ted reasons for the ex–
plosion in cesareans: the
doctor's convenience and
money.
In a study of 120 births,
sociologist Susan G. Doering
of Johns Hopkins University
found that 16 out of 20 (80
percent) "emergency" ce–
sareans were at certain
hours of the day, even
though the births were all
spread randomly. She also
noted a large Blue Cross
study that showed that a
woman's chances of having
a cesarean rose in direct
proportion to what her insur–
ance would pay for the op–
eration!
(New
York
Post,
November 28, 1977.)
Once such operations
were rare. considered a
last-ditch measure lo save
the mother's lile. Now sorne
hospitals have cesarean
rates as high as 40 percent!
(New York Post,
December
28, 1977.) Overall , since
1970. the cesarean rate has
tripled at most hospitals.
" Many hospital doctors
seem lo feel that God made
Besides subjecting moth–
ers lo all the hazards of a
major operation. cesareans
carry other drawbacks. Ba–
bies delivered through ce–
sareans run a greater risk of
breathing problems. "Labor
itself seems to do something
for the baby: uterine con–
tractions help expel fluid in
the baby's lungs and stom–
ach. In a cesarean. the baby
often has difficulty in breath-
Probably the greatest
torce pushing cesarean op–
erations is a doctor 's fear of
malpractice suits. Many doc–
tors fear that if they deliver
a " less than perfect" baby,
they will be sued, and rather
!han take that chance, sub–
ject the mother to a major,
though now common, opera–
líen. Yet ironically, Dr. Helen
Marieskind, the Seatlle phy–
sician who found in a 1980