at least, that's what we say we are doing.

[cimorene]

the night before last i dreamt that i was a superhero with a pretty cool power that involved the command of lightning (and a high school and a gazebo, but we won't go into that).  and last night i could fly and had to save perry from some angry deer.  it's always fun when you can remember dreams.

today's lecture in aktuell sociologisk forskning was really interesting--it was given by a woman who's writing her doctoral thesis on birthing fear, which is an actual medical diagnosis in finland.  finland is the only country in the world with a specific diagnosis for it; it's classified as a gynecological ailment rather than treated as psychological (as is normal in, say, sweden).  and it's considered a problem with the pregnant woman--the medical discourse on the subject is all "irrational fears" and "fear without cause" without the least bit of awareness of irony, according to the lecturer:  stuff like "unfortunately, many women who have had birth complications in the past become unreasonably nervous in subsequent pregnancies" with no acknowledgement that they might have a good reason for that or that there might be some cause in the system for this fear.  according to her, in america (and britain, to an increasing extent) women can opt to have c-sections pretty freely, without having to show a medical necessity.  in contrast, the finnish government pays for the birth regardless and c-section is more expensive, so the medical establishment has a vested interest in minimising the numbers of them, and their policy is to push for a regular birth as much as possible.  one of the quotes we saw said something about how it's harder to justify a c-section (which is called, in swedish, an "emperor incision") on a "psychological" basis. 

Comments

[cimness.livejournal.com]

which is pretty odd considering that a c-section is still... major surgery with, i presume, ample risk of its own attached. the medical student above you says it's ten times more risky than regular birth--i don't have any statistics of my own.

according to our lecturer, the rising popularity (and positive publicity, as it were) of elective c-sections in america and britain (she mentioned victoria beckham, who was "too posh to push!" and scheduled her birth around becks's soccer matches) is thought to be behind the rising demand for them here and in sweden.

[mmeguilotn.livejournal.com]

for what it's worth, c-sections have a much higher risk to the mother, but they minimise risk to the baby, particularly in the breech position. and if that baby's cord gets compressed or the shoulder gets hung up and the kid ends up with cerebral palsy or some other permanent damage, that's several million that your insurance company is paying out. if the mother dies or suffers permanent morbidity from elective surgery and she had been properly informed of the risks, under u.s. law it's usually going to be a known complication rather than negligence.