KW: "Hey - thanks for writing Born In The USA. Your main idea(s) regarding the unnecessary measures that doctors take persuaded me to rethink pregnancy and birth in America"
MW: "Really, which parts were most effective or important for you?"
KW: Well, in the last third of the book you focused on how we as Americans should change how birth is done in this country, which connected to, and further developed the ideas in the first four sixths of the book. But let me be more specific."
MW: "Please do."
KW: "Oh, I will."
MW: "Splendid."
KW: "Earlier in the book, you discussed how there are countries like the Netherlands which have a higher home-birth rate then the United States, while still maintaining lower natal mortality rates (Wagner,145.) Near the end of the book, you write about how that even though doctors advise against it, for low-risk births, planned home births lead to lower amounts of complications; making them the better option. (Wagner, 240.) At the end of the book, you explain how there is a Obstetric monopoly. Women have to realize the wrong-doings of the medical world during birth, such as unnecessary interventions during birth, and act to change these wrong-doings to change the way birth is handled for the better. (Wagner, 249.)"
MW: "But what could I have done to make this a better book - that would more effectively fulfill its mission?"
KW: "Well, let's be clear - your text sought to provide policy analysis from the perspective of a doctor that doesn't agree with his peers for the book-reading-public to better understand pregnancy and birth in our culture. Given that aim, and your book, the best advice I would give for a second edition of the text would be to make sure that the same ideas that are present throughout the book are presented in a variety of ways. You did this to a point during your book, by using personal stories compared to statistics, but it also go redundant. Also the way the book is written, it may seem as if it is attacking women who have gotten C-sections at points. That could turn some people off so the changes that should be made aren't necessarily about the content, but the style. But I don't want you to feel like I'm criticizing. I appreciate the immense amount of labor you dedicated to this important issue and particularly for making me think about home births in relation to hospital births and how rewarding home births can be. Also, it made me think about midwives vs. obstetricians and that even though obstetricians have a medical degree, most of the time what they do is unnecessary. In fact, I'm likely to advise people against the "traditional hospital birth" with a obstetrician as a result of your book."
MW: "Thanks! Talking to you gives me hope about our future as a society! Because you are so smart, insightful, and handsome."
Monday, March 28, 2011
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Homework 39- book response 2
Wagner, Marsden. Born in the USA How a Broken Maternity System Must Be Fixed to Put Women and Children First. Berekely and Los Angeles, California: University of Berkely, 2006. 1-189. Print.
While both "The Business of Being Born" and the book "born in the USA" both preach midwifery and home births they approach it differently. The book gives more hard numbers, with small bits of heavily biased analysis, while the movie gives long talks and examples, followed by small bits and numbers. Not saying that the book doesn't give examples, for almost every data set (survey, who stat, ect.) there is one powerful example. Which is a very good strategy to sell his points. because the shock value of the story has you looking at the numbers saying, "Wow, this happens to 36% of people. This needs to be changed." The movie doesn't use this tactic, or at least not as well. The movie is showing a few smooth deliveries assisted by midwives. I must add that these aren't using totally different techniques to display information and persuade the viewer/reader as the author from born in the USA, Marsden wagner, is in the movie, almost directly quoting his book.
From pages 100-200 there were two different chapters that each had a major insight. "Freedom, family sanctity, the women's choice, and human rights should dictate place of birth." (Wagner, 151) Many people, especially from the medical world are trying to tell people that birth belongs in the hospital. These people for the most part aren't thinking about what the women wants, they are thinking about what is most convenient for them. Which is usual at the hospital, where the doctors feel most comfortable.
The other big insight from the second hundred pages was "Pitting pregnant and birthing women against those doctors and hospitals who abuse their rights is, one hopes, only a temporary buy necessary strategy in giving birth decision-making rights back to women and families." (Wagner, 181) Doctors and other people in the medical world (hospital administrators, insurance providers, ect.) "strongly influence" women during labor and the birthing process. This can range from giving advice that benefits the doctor and not the mother, to giving unwanted procedures. To get to the point, women have less power then they should and that has to change.
-Obstetricians are against out-of-hospital birth, and don't even want to look at the facts about it. (Wagner, 132)
-There are far fewer interventions in out of hospital births. (Wagner, 135)
-There are countries with much higher home-birth and lower natal mortality rates then the United States. (Wagner, 145)
-Obstetricians have much worse track records regarding how women are treated during birth, yet are more used and respected then midwives. (Wagner, 155)
-Patients have a lot of rights that aren't respected by doctors. (Wagner, 174)
Marsden Wagner used the information that the Netherlands has a 36% planned home-birth rate, and a lower natal mortality rate then the United States.
"In Peristat-II from 22 weeks gestation, after France, The Netherlands had the highest fetal mortality rate (7.0 per 1,000 total number of births)." (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19192585)
This is relevant to Marsden Wagner's arguments, because all he is trying to prove is that having a hospital birth isn't the only way to go. That countries outside the U.S. have a lot of successful home births. This proves it because the Netherlands has a .7% perinatal mortality rate. While the U.S. Showed 1.4% in one study.
While both "The Business of Being Born" and the book "born in the USA" both preach midwifery and home births they approach it differently. The book gives more hard numbers, with small bits of heavily biased analysis, while the movie gives long talks and examples, followed by small bits and numbers. Not saying that the book doesn't give examples, for almost every data set (survey, who stat, ect.) there is one powerful example. Which is a very good strategy to sell his points. because the shock value of the story has you looking at the numbers saying, "Wow, this happens to 36% of people. This needs to be changed." The movie doesn't use this tactic, or at least not as well. The movie is showing a few smooth deliveries assisted by midwives. I must add that these aren't using totally different techniques to display information and persuade the viewer/reader as the author from born in the USA, Marsden wagner, is in the movie, almost directly quoting his book.
From pages 100-200 there were two different chapters that each had a major insight. "Freedom, family sanctity, the women's choice, and human rights should dictate place of birth." (Wagner, 151) Many people, especially from the medical world are trying to tell people that birth belongs in the hospital. These people for the most part aren't thinking about what the women wants, they are thinking about what is most convenient for them. Which is usual at the hospital, where the doctors feel most comfortable.
The other big insight from the second hundred pages was "Pitting pregnant and birthing women against those doctors and hospitals who abuse their rights is, one hopes, only a temporary buy necessary strategy in giving birth decision-making rights back to women and families." (Wagner, 181) Doctors and other people in the medical world (hospital administrators, insurance providers, ect.) "strongly influence" women during labor and the birthing process. This can range from giving advice that benefits the doctor and not the mother, to giving unwanted procedures. To get to the point, women have less power then they should and that has to change.
-Obstetricians are against out-of-hospital birth, and don't even want to look at the facts about it. (Wagner, 132)
-There are far fewer interventions in out of hospital births. (Wagner, 135)
-There are countries with much higher home-birth and lower natal mortality rates then the United States. (Wagner, 145)
-Obstetricians have much worse track records regarding how women are treated during birth, yet are more used and respected then midwives. (Wagner, 155)
-Patients have a lot of rights that aren't respected by doctors. (Wagner, 174)
Marsden Wagner used the information that the Netherlands has a 36% planned home-birth rate, and a lower natal mortality rate then the United States.
"In Peristat-II from 22 weeks gestation, after France, The Netherlands had the highest fetal mortality rate (7.0 per 1,000 total number of births)." (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19192585)
This is relevant to Marsden Wagner's arguments, because all he is trying to prove is that having a hospital birth isn't the only way to go. That countries outside the U.S. have a lot of successful home births. This proves it because the Netherlands has a .7% perinatal mortality rate. While the U.S. Showed 1.4% in one study.
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
Homework 38- book response 1
The book, born in the USA, is organized so that the book is divided into chapters. Each chapter has a new main idea. The chapters are organized where main ideas are presented at The beginning of the chapter, and as the chapter progresses there are details about the main idea.
As a side note: at the start of every chapter there are quotes related to birth. What I find interesting is that Wagner includes quotes from a variety of people, authors, actors, ect.
The main question that this book is trying to answer is "what is birth like in America?" The way Marsden Wagner answers this question in the book is good. First discussing the medical standard for birth, the c-section vs. Natural birth, midwifery. Each chapter goes into a different aspect of birth in America. But the problem in some of the writing is that instead of trying to answer "what is birth like in America?" he's answering "what are the flaws in the birth system?" which may just be another main question he's trying to answer.
The main insight that the book is trying to get across in the first 100 pages is that birth isn't done in done in one way. I believe that he does a good job displaying this insight in the book. I like how he doesn't jump focus between the different ways, but still covers them. This is another aspect of the book where the bias against the doctoral system can be seen.
One interesting thing that the book explains is that there is this unwritten code between doctors, a code basically saying even when a doctor is wrong, they are right. Another interesting aspect is that midwives are very educated but doctors don't take them seriously. A point that is stressed in the book is that in low risk births, the amount of babies dying is higher with doctors then midwives. Usually OB interventions are more hurtful then helpful.
Marsden Wagner uses a variety of sources. He uses statistics from studies, peoples personal stories, and his experiences. I think all the evidence he is using is truthful, it's just biased. Like the first story he told in the book was about a woman that almost died because of a possibly avoidable operation. I'm sure that story is true, but it makes it seem like that happening all the time, which it could be but the percentage of births affected by it isn't significant enough to show. His personal stories are very insightful, because he's a doctor himself and it gives you an inside view of this whole other "doctor world". All the information that has been presented toe in this book seems credible and relevant. I think this book has a lot of insightful information that is helping me learn what birth is like around me.
As a side note: at the start of every chapter there are quotes related to birth. What I find interesting is that Wagner includes quotes from a variety of people, authors, actors, ect.
The main question that this book is trying to answer is "what is birth like in America?" The way Marsden Wagner answers this question in the book is good. First discussing the medical standard for birth, the c-section vs. Natural birth, midwifery. Each chapter goes into a different aspect of birth in America. But the problem in some of the writing is that instead of trying to answer "what is birth like in America?" he's answering "what are the flaws in the birth system?" which may just be another main question he's trying to answer.
The main insight that the book is trying to get across in the first 100 pages is that birth isn't done in done in one way. I believe that he does a good job displaying this insight in the book. I like how he doesn't jump focus between the different ways, but still covers them. This is another aspect of the book where the bias against the doctoral system can be seen.
One interesting thing that the book explains is that there is this unwritten code between doctors, a code basically saying even when a doctor is wrong, they are right. Another interesting aspect is that midwives are very educated but doctors don't take them seriously. A point that is stressed in the book is that in low risk births, the amount of babies dying is higher with doctors then midwives. Usually OB interventions are more hurtful then helpful.
Marsden Wagner uses a variety of sources. He uses statistics from studies, peoples personal stories, and his experiences. I think all the evidence he is using is truthful, it's just biased. Like the first story he told in the book was about a woman that almost died because of a possibly avoidable operation. I'm sure that story is true, but it makes it seem like that happening all the time, which it could be but the percentage of births affected by it isn't significant enough to show. His personal stories are very insightful, because he's a doctor himself and it gives you an inside view of this whole other "doctor world". All the information that has been presented toe in this book seems credible and relevant. I think this book has a lot of insightful information that is helping me learn what birth is like around me.
Thursday, March 3, 2011
Homework 36- blog comments
From my team:
From Sam:
I really like your observation of not really understanding what these stories mean especially because you have nothing to compare them to because the t.v. does lie to us. I feel like this blind intelligence is really something that you can build off of to help further your independent research because what do these stories mean? Was what the first women really went through significant in terms of birth stories (it seems so to me). I feel like maybe going in depth a little more on the other stories would have given it something to compare it to. But i can understand your interest in the first one because it caught my attention as well. Good writing Kevin.
From my mentor (dad):
The sharpest insight that I saw in this post was when you were trying to relate these stories back to the course, or anything. You said that you don't have anything to relate it back to because the little extent of your knowledge is very questionable. You also had a thought provoking idea when you talked about the fetus being a parasite. I never heard anybody Call a fetus that before but the way you presented it made sense.
One thing that you should work on in future posts is your wording and flow. If you can get your posts to flow better, they will be better.
From my protogé (little brother):
I think the best part of this blog was the first story you talked about. You went into a lot of detail in that one, and that made it interesting. You also used some good words to describe how she felt "her life changed completely". Other then that your tv thing was good too.
This post made me want to hear my own birth story. It made me realize that every pregnancy story is not the same. Every one is different and there are a lot of things that affect birth.
This blog post was very strong Kevin, you obviously put alot of time and effort into. Specifically your thoughts on the males position in the birthing processnshowed alot, you stated that he didn't have many good insights and I think your ability to sort the good insights from the not so good shows a deeper level of analysis. My favorite thought is when you stated that "I can compare them to what I see on television, but I don’t believe that birth is depicted well on television, that it is mocked." I felt this line was the strongest because I could relate to it the most. I have never seen a real birth but I have seen it on t.v. And after hearing the birth stories that I retrieved and everyone roses it does seem like they are almost mocking it on t.v. As you said.
---------------------------------------------
My comments:
To Sam:
This post was really cool. I love the first person narrative. I also like that the point of views that were represented were all from the childrens perspectives, the second hand storytelling was interesting. I found the second story to be the most interesting, and I think it inspired one of your bolder questions: "Are they afraid of what will happen after words or are they willing to accept that for what they will be creating?" When you explain the person talked about if the family that gave thier child away knew they could provide for him or her. Like Andy would say, it's developing one of those "bubbles".
Overall I really enjoyed reading your post, partly because it didn't go on and on, partly because it had a great style to it, and partly because of the interesting information it provided. Keep it up.
-Kevin
To sharif:
This is definitely one of your better written posts. Little grammatical error, sharp insights. To be honest I was surprised. When you were talking about your mothers interview you had me laughing, which means I wanted to read more because I found it interesting. Your post was fairly long but it had good structure to it so it didn't seem as long. It wasn't that repetitive either, as every story had a different focus. What I would suggest is making transitions between the stories, and connect them to each other. Like in the interview with your mom, you discussed a "connection" with you (as a fetus/newlyborn child) and then you again made a similar reference in the story with your family member. Because of this, you could have related them, made a deeper connection between them.
Maybe this is a topic you could study further.
Good writing man. Exceeded my expectations!
-Kevin (comment back!)
From Sam:
I really like your observation of not really understanding what these stories mean especially because you have nothing to compare them to because the t.v. does lie to us. I feel like this blind intelligence is really something that you can build off of to help further your independent research because what do these stories mean? Was what the first women really went through significant in terms of birth stories (it seems so to me). I feel like maybe going in depth a little more on the other stories would have given it something to compare it to. But i can understand your interest in the first one because it caught my attention as well. Good writing Kevin.
From my mentor (dad):
The sharpest insight that I saw in this post was when you were trying to relate these stories back to the course, or anything. You said that you don't have anything to relate it back to because the little extent of your knowledge is very questionable. You also had a thought provoking idea when you talked about the fetus being a parasite. I never heard anybody Call a fetus that before but the way you presented it made sense.
One thing that you should work on in future posts is your wording and flow. If you can get your posts to flow better, they will be better.
From my protogé (little brother):
I think the best part of this blog was the first story you talked about. You went into a lot of detail in that one, and that made it interesting. You also used some good words to describe how she felt "her life changed completely". Other then that your tv thing was good too.
This post made me want to hear my own birth story. It made me realize that every pregnancy story is not the same. Every one is different and there are a lot of things that affect birth.
This blog post was very strong Kevin, you obviously put alot of time and effort into. Specifically your thoughts on the males position in the birthing processnshowed alot, you stated that he didn't have many good insights and I think your ability to sort the good insights from the not so good shows a deeper level of analysis. My favorite thought is when you stated that "I can compare them to what I see on television, but I don’t believe that birth is depicted well on television, that it is mocked." I felt this line was the strongest because I could relate to it the most. I have never seen a real birth but I have seen it on t.v. And after hearing the birth stories that I retrieved and everyone roses it does seem like they are almost mocking it on t.v. As you said.
---------------------------------------------
My comments:
To Sam:
This post was really cool. I love the first person narrative. I also like that the point of views that were represented were all from the childrens perspectives, the second hand storytelling was interesting. I found the second story to be the most interesting, and I think it inspired one of your bolder questions: "Are they afraid of what will happen after words or are they willing to accept that for what they will be creating?" When you explain the person talked about if the family that gave thier child away knew they could provide for him or her. Like Andy would say, it's developing one of those "bubbles".
Overall I really enjoyed reading your post, partly because it didn't go on and on, partly because it had a great style to it, and partly because of the interesting information it provided. Keep it up.
-Kevin
To sharif:
This is definitely one of your better written posts. Little grammatical error, sharp insights. To be honest I was surprised. When you were talking about your mothers interview you had me laughing, which means I wanted to read more because I found it interesting. Your post was fairly long but it had good structure to it so it didn't seem as long. It wasn't that repetitive either, as every story had a different focus. What I would suggest is making transitions between the stories, and connect them to each other. Like in the interview with your mom, you discussed a "connection" with you (as a fetus/newlyborn child) and then you again made a similar reference in the story with your family member. Because of this, you could have related them, made a deeper connection between them.
Maybe this is a topic you could study further.
Good writing man. Exceeded my expectations!
-Kevin (comment back!)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)