Wolf’s Misconceptions

Peter Edman

The dehumanizing effects of current technology—technopoly—are rarely so hidden in plain view as in the current medicalized process of birth.

Naomi Wolf’s book Misconceptions: Truth, Lies, and the Unexpected on the Journey to Motherhood (Doubleday 2001) is well worth reading, despite some overwrought prose. Her experience and research completely reinforces the discussion that Postman makes in chapter 6 of Technopoly on the ideology of machines in medicine. The result is a focus on the diagnostic machines and artificial timelines rather than on the physical and mental health of the mother. The technical birthing process is essentially counterproductive.

My wife and I had personal confirmation of her thesis with the delivery of our son in January. Wolf’s concept of the “inescapable standard of care” was certainly present in our case despite our strenuous efforts. Time pressure and repeated medical intervention from our obstetrician led directly to what was likely an unnecessary cesarean section. Granted, we survived and everyone has recovered well enough. But we are switching obstetricians. I never want to endure anything like that again.

The quote below discusses the over-routine use of epidurals to stop pain during labor and delivery and its unintended consequences.

A conversation with Catherine Moore, a licensed nurse-midwife who advised me on these issues, on the subject of epidurals, raised two kinds of reasons for women to get all the pain support they possibly can as alternatives to early epidurals: “An epidural is not just pain medication along the normal route to birth. It is, rather, a highly technological intervention that totally changes the way birth proceeds,” pointed out Ms. Moore. “It involves serious narcotics, administered by an anesthetist, to achieve the proper anesthesia, and also requires an IV, EFM, often a straight or Foley catheter. When you request an epidural you are not just cutting off pain, you are really taking a sharp detour into a completely different birth experience. Most women are really not fully informed about this as they consider their choices.

“In our experience, epidurals do not allow a woman to be physically or mentally present at the birth of her child. Epidurals don’t just give women birth without pain, they also give women birth without feeling, which a lot of women would consider seriously if this were really made clear to them.

“They also help women carry on as if they are not really engaged in something incredibly difficult, disruptive, and important—which is the same social expectation they will face as new mothers. The laboring woman on an epidural can be counted on not to make noise or to ask for much from the staff. The partner of the laboring woman on an epidural can go for coffee, watch TV, read the paper—really a minimal expectation of support versus the kind of involvement that a birth supporter for a nonmedicated birth must offer. This kind of birth definitely does not hurt, but it also does not really give mothers the sense that they were there for or involved with the birth. That’s more than just a pain management choice; it is a big difference that women should be made aware of as they decide.”

Of particular interest to me is the section I’ve placed in boldface, on social expectations. Almost an aside for the current theme, it points to a larger reality: In a technological society, efficiency is all. Unfortunately, children are anything but efficient.

Wolf talks about the extremely high rate of serious depression faced by mothers today due to this and other social pressures. And I continue to be disturbed by stories of public hostility to friends who have more than three children. Something is not right here.

Fodder, Society, Science and Technology, Fri 03 Jun 2005