Medicalisation of childbirth
In the nineteenth century childbirth was taken out of the control of women and placed into the hands of the institution of medicine (Oakley 1976; Donnison 1997; Kent 2000 in Nettleton 2006: 6). This meant that ‘by the 1970s virtually all babies were born in hospitals’ (Nettleton 2006: 6), with only a small majority of babies being born at home. Primarily, the experience of childbirth was taken away from the domestic sphere and placed into the public sphere (Nettleton 2006: 6). As a result the concept of childbirth, which was once seen as a natural part of life, has now become almost fully medicalised (Conrad 2007: 6).
The NHS website provides information about research into home and hospital births. Their general consensus was that these types of birth both carried a low level of risk (Nhs.uk.2017). Although, when researchers focused solely on women planning to have their first baby at home, they found that the chances of complications during birth were three times more likely (Nhs.uk.2017). Further to this, they stated that 45% of women who opted for a home birth for their first pregnancy were transferred to hospital before or after delivery (Nhs.uk.2017). However, the overall rate of negative outcomes (death or serious complications) was 4.3 per 1000 births and there was no difference between non-obstetric unit settings compared with obstetric units (Nhs.uk.2017). Nettleton states that ‘around 95%; yet they are treated like an illness, and mothers as patients.’ (Nettleton 2006: 161). Evidently, the research provided on the NHS website supports Nettleton’s claim as there is no evidence of home births causing any form of harm to either to the child or the patient, apart from home births for a woman’s first pregnancy. This makes you question why women must give up their reproductive autonomy and place it into the hands of medicine.
Furthermore, this links into the approach that the ‘Doctor knows best’ (Oakley 2005: 152). Obstetrics like midwifery describe a female province and throughout history the management of reproduction has been thought in most cultures to be a female concern (Oakley 2005: 152). It is interesting however that childbirth is predominately ‘controlled by men’ (Oakley 2005: 152), even though it is something that they will never experiences themselves. Radical feminists they have responded to this with the claim that medicine is inherently patriarchal and as a result men have seized control over women’s bodies (McLaren 2012: 7). During the second wave of feminism in the 1960’s and 1970’s women ‘did not simply seek to explain the inequalities between men and women but use this as a basis for change.’ (Hollows 2000: 3). Women gained elements of equality and independence at this time but recently this appears to be taken off them, where by it is men who is once again controlling their lives. Therefore the statement that ‘men are not vulnerable to medicalisation as women are’ (Reissman, 1983) is somewhat true due to the predominant male dominated medical industry. In order for women to overcome their subordination ‘existing institutions must drastically be altered’ (McLaren 2012: 7) and the only way this could change is if healthcare is provided by women for women, leaving behind all sexist, heterosexual views.
Pregnancy is supposed to be a natural function, however women are instructed to continuously visit health care professionals until their baby is born with the idea that the medical advice the doctor is giving them is correct; they need women to depend on them. Women are then left with the assumption that ‘natural functions of childbirth can only be accomplished within a circumscribed medical context’ (Graham, 1997 in Oakley 2005: 160). In this case, Illich’s claim that medical technologies create a dependence on health care is true (Illich 1795). Although, in this circumstance be argued as doing more harm than good to women in society as research shows that childbirth does not need to be medicalised.
Although, Illich’s view thatmedical imperialism may not always be seen as doing harm. The medicalisation of childbirth has allowed medical professionals to come into contact with new technologies of childbirth (Nettleton 2006: 1). This means that medicine has altered the boundaries of the social and physical body. For women who have had troubles in getting pregnant, or would like to get pregnant but do not have a partner, technology has opened up opportunities to make this possible. Women can either chose IVF, sperm donners, or even design their own baby. What is important is that this gives women choice in an area that was once controlled simply by themselves. It is questionable as to whether too much control is being put into the hands of medicalisation.
However, According to the naturalistic view the body is conceived as a part of nature that holds a set of of biological functions (McLaren 2012: 82). However, the use of reproductive technologies has essentially gone against ‘natural’ births as it is allowing fetuses to be grown in laboratories rather than in the womb. As Illich (1975) points out, there may be other social factors that cause the medicalisation of childbirth. Capitalism is one example of this as the contribution of the new technologies may not only be there with the purpose to help people but also to make money, as these procedures come with a ghastly cost.
Ultimately, Illich’s (1975) claim on Medical Imperialism that does more harm than good is true to a certain extent. It has crept into society in many ways, especially in childbirth, but when thinking whether or not it is a bad thing is up to the interpretation of the reader. Some may have the view that the medicalisation of childbirth is good as it has altered the boundaries of the social and physical body. However, some may have the view that medicine has took control of what is meant to be a natural process for women. Illich (1975) foreseen the idea that medicine will have a dramatic impact on the population and clearly this is true as it has become ‘normal’ for women to be controlled by medical professionals during pregnancy and childbirth, even if there is evidence proving that home and hospital births hold equal amount of risk. Therefore, the question that needs to be asked is why society hold a significant amount of trust in medicine?
Reference List
Conrad, P. (2007). The Medicalization of Society. United States of America: The Johns University Press.
Illich, I. (1975). Medical Nemesis. New York: Pantheon Books.
McLaren, M. (2012). Feminism, Foucault, and Embodied Subjectivity. United States of America: State University of New York.
Nettleton, S. (2006). The Sociology of Health and Illness. 1st edn. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Nhs.uk. (2017). Research has compared hospital births and home births for safety and recovery – Health news – NHS Choices. [online] Available at: http://www.nhs.uk/news/2011/11November/Pages/hospital-births-home-births-compared.aspx [Accessed 28 Apr. 2017].
Oakley, A. (2005). The Ann Oakley Reader: Gender, women and social science. Univerity of Bristol: The Policy Press.
Riessman, Catherine Kohler. (1983). “Women and Medicalization: A New Perspective.” Social Policy 14 (summer): 3-18.
Medical Imperialism: Women's Bodies 