Letter to the Editor, take 2

Written in response to Daily Universe Article (page 8, "Hospital Births a Safe Option)

Hospital births are not necessarily the safest option for a majority of mothers. In cases of non-complicated pregnancies, a non-intervention birth at home may be a safer alternative. Medical procedures that have come to be the norm in our society can actually put both the mother and baby at risk. First of all, more than 2/3 of laboring mothers in the United States opt for a pain-relieving epidural. In many cases, obstetricians will not even allow the mother a choice. However, epidurals affect birthing hormones, slowing down labor in many cases. As a result of the slowed labor, the doctors will administer pitocin, a synthetic form of the hormone oxytocin, increasing the intensity and frequency of uterine contractions. And quite reminiscent of our rushed culture, if the mother still does not progress in her labor, she will be convinced that the best thing for her and the baby would be a c-section. However, the reality is the c-section is the best thing for that obstetrician; c-sections are the most lucrative, efficient, and litigiously safe way to bring children into the world by the standard of the doctor. No wonder the American College of OB/GYNS denounces home births... perhaps there are some vested interests there? It is not taken into account that a c-section also increases the risk of infection and hemorrhage (and death), prolongs recovery, and inhibits breastfeeding initiation. But aren't we missing out on the beauty and spirituality of childbirth? We thank the doctor for "delivering the baby," but shouldn't we be praising the mother for her blood sacrifice? Our conception of childbirth must be rethought before we turn it into some weird medical, scientific phenomenon, and forget about what a supernal gift it is given to women by their God.