Okay, so a lot of interesting points being brought up here about the video. Amidst the multitude of questions that the film has raised, as well as the graphic imagery, I was very curious to the progression of medicalized births. The film said in 1900 nearly no babies were born in hospitals, but nearly half were born in one by 1940. They said that this was caused the increased feminist movements and their desire to take advantage of new medications to ease to pain and symptoms. This would then be administered in hospitals by OBGYNs. So the "business" formed around this pro-medicine attitude initiated by the women in the 20th century. But I got the vibe that somehow this view as hospitals being pro-women changed in the 1960s when a different kind of feminist empowerment took place. So mid-wives returned as a new pro-women option against the hospitalized industry (which originated from a pro-medicine movement by women,) because hospitals "ruined" the spiritual and emotional parts from giving birth. Please correct if I am wrong, but this is what I picked up on from watching the film.
Regardless, I disagree with the one mid-wives view of hospitals ruining the connection between mother and baby because the mother was "sedated" in the process. I would assume that an emotional connection to the baby would still exit regardless of its method of birth. If a caring mother spent 9 months tending to her baby, then her method of birth would not change a mother's will to nurture her child.
No comments:
Post a Comment