I wrote this for a midterm. I know this applies to one or two of you out there, and may someday to more... the readership of my journal is all female for some reason. :) Now, I know I'm in waaaay over my head, spouting out opinions about a biological process I'll never undergo and can't possibly understand, but I gotta pass the class, right? So here goes:

2. I believe that the major philosophical division between alternative birth centers and the traditional medical profession is that of the role of the patient. While traditional medicine views the patient as an object, alternative care views the patient as a partner in the process.

Traditional medical care typically treats the patient as a machine. The process of birth is simple - the doctors facilitate the machine's production of a child. Because of this, birth becomes a procedure with certain protocols that must not be deviated from. Kathy McCain pointed out many of these in the course of her talk. The "machine" must be prepared in a specified way - in other words, the woman must be in a given position, sterilized, and so forth. The machine is given a set time to produce the child, after which doctors will assume it is malfunctioning and manually override it. Most of the women I have talked to who have had children report that their labor was induced. They speak of it as nothing special, a testament to how common the procedure is, but I cannot comprehend why it is okay to rush the process unnecessarily. If the machine seems like it is not working perfectly or as expected, the doctors will remove the baby manually. Again, in speaking with women, many of them indicate that they had C-sections performed, even though they were not having serious problems. Again, I cannot understand this.

Conversely, the alternative birth centers seem much more open to the needs of a patient as a person. By allowing the patient a choice in how the birth will proceed, from position to medication to actions, the patient is treated as a person rather than an object. By making the patient feel more active, more responsible, and more in control of the birth, she will feel more comfortable and be more confident. In addition, the patient is less likely to suffer from complications that might occur during normal hospital birth, such as possible side-effects of induced labor, or the risk of infection that a C-section carries.

Both birth paradigms seem committed to the best possible medical care, as opposed to acting out of social or political motivations, but in different ways. Hospital care views "best possible medical care" as an absolute and general concept. Each woman is set up to receive the absolute best. They are positioned so as to ensure that doctors can intervene best if something goes wrong; their labor is induced, in theory to minimize how much of it they have to endure; they are given C-sections not only when necessary, but to prevent any mishaps or difficulties. Although this is an effective and efficient procedure, it suffers from two serious problems. First, the whole process of preparing for disaster is usually not necessary, and can lead to a doctor feeling that he has to use the techniques available to him, rather than let them go to waste. Second, the patient is given very little choice in the matter, and may feel uncomfortable and helpless.

Conversely, alternative birth centers acknowledge that patients may not always want what conventional medicine says is "best" for them, such as a C-section, and offers them the right to choose. The policy of these birth centers is that birth is a normal and natural life process, and as such, medical intervention will not be necessary in many if not most cases. That being the case, women should be allowed to have as much control over the process as possible. Recognizing the differences between patients may not be what traditional medicine views as the best practice, but it is definitely better from a humanistic perspective, as it is more conducive to the emotional and psychological well-being of the mother in question. It is also more realistic - as Kathy McKain pointed out, only in recent years has birth become the province of the hospital. Hospitals seem to offer more benefits, but in reality those benefits are only necessary in some cases.

If my spouse was expecting a child, she would deliver that child wherever she darn well pleased. I wold have absolutely no intention of deciding for her how she was going to deliver that baby! That said, however, I believe I would encourage an alternative birth center. By nature I am a very anti-technocratic, naturalistic person. Though I'll never experience it, and probably have no real right to say so, I believe in keeping things simple and natural. If inducing labor is not necessary, it shouldn't be done; the same applies to C-sections. I also believe that women should have as much control over the process as possible, considering they are the ones giving birth. From practical experience as well, I know of one person currently planning to have a midwife-assisted birth, and she seems pleased with the choice. This is not to say that I don't believe in the ability of hospitals to handle difficulties or give care; I simply feel that a birth should not be treated as an emergency waited to happen without a reason to do so. I believe the natural emphasis of an alternative birth center is the best option.