In recent years, the management of childbirth has become a great deal and an issue of debate among the lay public and medical professionals. Although it is primarily a personal choice of a mother, the debate is still ongoing because different factors have made the natural childbirth process very controversial. The fears and attitudes of parents influence the choices they make and the maternity care they receive. Moreover, the bias of medical systems towards specific birthing processes like C-sections has made natural childbirth more controversial, which is creating a strong impact on the health of both mother and baby (Haines, Helen M et al.).
Natural childbirth is defined as a process in which medical interference is minimized, and nature is allowed to do its job. Mother performs relaxing and breathing techniques to deal with all the pain and ease delivery. A common notion has developed among mothers that natural childbirth is very risky and painful. As a natural way of birth requires a lot of patience and tolerance, therefore, mothers nowadays avoid delivering a baby naturally. They cannot endure all the pain and select C-sections for delivery or other medical interventions like epidurals. It adds to making natural childbirth more provocative.
The trend of pregnancy medicalization has been increasing enormously. It has taken many forms, like drugs that induce labor pains, spinal epidurals, fetal monitoring, and surgical delivery. Surgical deliveries have constituted one-third of the births. The overall trend in the direction of medicalizing pregnancy and the birth process has created quite a few morally striking effects. The first and foremost effect produced by medicalization has contributed to encouraging people to visualize pregnancy and delivery as intrinsically high-risk, compulsive processes. People have started thinking that it is nearly impossible to commence childbirth in the absence of a huge volume of skillful help and observation (Kukla, Rebecca, and Katherine Wayne).
Secondly, medical professionals have become the principal directors of reproduction, and this has led to the undermining of pregnant women’s epistemic honor. Women are restricted to playing submissive roles in their prenatal period and childbirth. Thirdly, some people have claimed that medicalization has condensed pregnancy in general and labor and birth in specific, which are more isolating and traumatic for women. It also encumbers them with a relentless and complex set of responsibilities for the purpose of intricate risk administration and physical and behavioral observation (Kukla, Rebecca, and Katherine Wayne).
All of these factors are contributing to making natural birth more controversial and difficult. There is another school of thought that is raising its voice against the medicalization of pregnancy. They are of the view that pregnancy is a normal process related to human life and is part of nature. There is no requirement for technological support. They support vaginal childbirth that is free of epidurals and pain inductions through medications. Moreover, they prefer midwives attending the patients instead of doctors. But it is also not a rational debate because complications do occur in natural birth as well, which are better dealt with by doctors. This debate is only contributing to making vaginal birth more and more controversial (Kukla, Rebecca, and Katherine Wayne).
As far as natural childbirth is concerned, it is no doubt a complicated phenomenon and in some cases, medical assistance is required as well. But there is also the fact that natural childbirth is a temporary pain, but other birth processes like C-sections and inductions are not only painful but take a lot of time to heal as well. These processes might provide temporary relief from pain but produce significant impacts on the body of the mother. The idea of dreadful and uncontrollable pain and complications is keeping mothers away from natural childbirth, and the bias of medical professionals, in this case, is a leading cause of it as well.
The bias of medical professionals towards cesarean births is increasing so much that it is getting out of hand nowadays. There are many cases when women are forced to have cesarean births even when there is no need for it, and it can be dangerous as well. One such example includes a woman who currently lost guardianship of her child for approximately three years just because she refused to surrender to a cesarean birth and wanted to deliver her child normally. The irony is that doctors passionately recommended the procedure and asked for pre-authorization when there was a lot of time before her delivery date. This shows that doctors had made up their minds for the pre-determined cesarean birth, but when the mother refused to undertake the procedure, they stooped to this level of immorality (SARICH, CHRISTINA).
Doctors find operations easier and are highly paid for that. This is the reason that they recommend it to every other mother. This bias for methods other than natural childbirth interferes with the rights of mothers and how they want to deliver their babies. Doctors are supposed to assist a mother and deal with complications in case of emergency. They are supposed to inform a mother about her condition and susceptibility towards natural birth rather than commanding them and selecting the method for them. Cesarean or other methods like induction should only be utilized when there is no other option left, but hospitals are playing the opposite role (SARICH, CHRISTINA).
Biasness for C-sections has increased to such a level that hospitals are even ready to go to court to become the guardians of a child that is to be born when the mother of the baby refuses to have an operation. Another example is proof of medical biases towards methods other than the natural way of delivering the baby. It includes a woman who delivered her six babies through vaginal delivery, and her doctors tried to convince her for hours to opt for C-sections. However, her babies were fine in the womb and were not in distress. The practice of C-section undoubtedly benefits doctors more as it takes less time and is costly as well, but it creates many harmful impacts on both mother and baby (SARICH, CHRISTINA).
Millions of women are now giving birth by C-section annually. This practice contributes to making a recovery after birth much prolonged and painful. Moreover, it also distresses the baby. Some doctors have noticed that cesarean births lead to increased premature births, enhanced maternal deaths, and more neonatal serious care admittances. Up till 1965, merely 4.5% of births were carried out through C-sections, but now it has become a common practice. Statistics show that almost 35% of births are now being carried out by medical interventions and not naturally intended. The facts and figures recorded clearly answer the research question that why natural childbirths are becoming so controversial. When doctors and hospitals can make money triple times more through C-sections as compared to the money produced by vaginal birth, then this bias towards cesarean birth is inevitable (SARICH, CHRISTINA).
Therefore, delivering babies has become a huge business and the way of delivery has become a hot topic for debate. If this issue is analyzed deeply, then the answer is hidden in the question that the medical bias toward medically intervened births is making natural childbirth more confrontational. Moreover, it adds up troubles for the mother and baby, which are long-lasting. Hence, C-sections should only be recommended when medically necessary.
Works Cited
SARICH, CHRISTINA. “Hospital And Judge Try To Force Mom Into C-Section Against Her Will.” Natural Society, 2013,
Kukla, Rebecca, and Katherine Wayne. “Pregnancy, Birth, And Medicine.” Plato.Stanford.Edu, 2016,
Haines, Helen M et al. “The Influence Of Women’s Fear, Attitudes And Beliefs Of Childbirth On Mode And Experience Of Birth.” 2012,.
Lothian, Judith A. “Why Natural Childbirth?”. 2000,.
Cite This Work
To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below:
