|
| | Suzanne Arms Letter to Good Morning America
6/21/00
Letter to the producers of ABC TV from Suzanne Arms regarding the airing of a TV
show on 6/20/00 about whether Cesarean sections should be allowed as elective
procedure by the parents. The TV interview featured Marsden Wagner, a renowned
expert on home birth, in a very short rebuttal.
Dear producers,
First, thank you for airing a brief but important piece on the huge controversy of Cesarean surgery in this country: it's benefits, hazards (both
immediate and long-term). And thank you, Diane Sawyer, for managing to insert an
accurate fact about one of the risks of cesarean surgery for the baby.
As a consumer advocate (with no professional ties to nursing, medicine or
midwifery) who's read the research and studied birth and maternal-infant health
practices in this country and worldwide for 25 years, and who has authored and
illustrated 7 published books in the field (one of which was named a "Best
Book" of the year by the NY Times), may I offer a few words of feedback and
a suggestion for a future piece?
Give it a few more minutes of time, as the subject greatly deserves it Recognize
that birth is a 50 BILLION dollar a year industry (we spend on just birth 1/3 of
what this country spends on all of education from nursery school through
college) and more than 50% of all hospitalizations in the US are for birth -
which is not, by nature's process, a medical event at all - making birth big
profit-making business Understand that this is not a debate between 2 different
ways of reading the literature. Those who believe cesarean is equal to or better
than vaginal birth have no good science to back their claims. There has been for
a decade serious international analysis of research in this field - coming first
from Oxford University Department of Epidiomology and more recently the Cochrane
Data Base, separating out "well-done" studies from poor studies.
The debate in terms of science is over and the results are in: as Dr. Wagner
said, there is no evidence that a cesarean rate higher than 10% (actually 7%)
yields any benefit to mothers or babies. There is ample data that cesarean
surgery, especially done electively (without benefit of any labor) hinders the
development of mother and baby and places each of them at immediate and
long-term risk of numerous problems. What you ended up airing looked to the
American public as if it were just a matter of 2 equal arguments, each based in
good science, the type that leads people to say "Science can prove
anything!" and to be cynical about all research.
Go deeper, as our nation's mothers and babies deserve. There's enormous profit
and ego motives, along with ignorance and denial, compelling many obstetricians
to do unnecessary cesareans and to be blind to the long-term negative
implications of them (whether or not done for good cause) Understand it's a
women's issue but that American women are today so frightened of labor and
mistrustful of their bodies and the natural process that they have handed birth
over to doctors and are no longer thinking deeply about the issues Be aware that
it's also an issue of what is best developmentally for babies ~ and for our entire species ~ as to whether they
need and benefit from spontaneous labor and natural birth or not. Scientific
evidence abounds that they, in fact, do.
I get discouraged when I see something handled so poorly as this segment. Dr
Marsden Wagner and the head of ACOG were not able to give any real sense of
their point of view. And the interview was hindered by being so rushed that I
could literally feel Dr Wagner's inability to put a cogent argument into brief
enough sentences.
I was interviewed by David Hartman on Good Morning America in the late 70s (or
was it the early 80s?), given 7 minutes to have a real debate with the then-head
of region 9 of ACOG regarding home birth and "lay midwives". That
debate was genuine and gave the public some real facts and issues to grapple
with. And before that, in June of 1975, following the publication of my book Immaculate Deception: A New Look at Women and Birth, Barbara Walters interviewed
me for 7 minutes on The Today Show. During that segment huge blowups of 2 black
and white photos of mine (one from a US hospital birth and one from a Dutch
birth) were displayed behind Ms Walter and me, showing the stunning obvious
differences. And that interview was considered so strong that the network chose
to continue it for 5 more minutes, after the
break, and allow those stations that wanted to, to run the second segment in
lieu of local news or weather.
I'd like to have a chance to interest you in the many issues related to birth in
this country that are being ignored or short-changed. Please understand that the
experiences each mother and baby pair have in birth affect each of them (and
their uniquely symbiotic relationship, which is the blueprint for all that
child's future relationships) for many years.
Give me a chance to express in brief to the American public the authentic value
of natural, normal birth. I can show very quickly what is wrong with a country
that, for 75+ years has routinely drugged and separated mothers and babies and
extolled a medical management model for birth, in the face of no good scientific
or clinical evidence. Our way of birth continues to be perverted by values that
have nothing to do with either good science or humane care. I would be happy to debate anyone on this. However, since the
"other side" already controls birth and is the prevailing belief of
the culture, it seems more than appropriate that "nature's" side gets
a fair hearing.
Some of the issues that might interest you (and I know would interest the
American public) for future Good Morning America segments include:
*the striking differences between the midwifery model and the medical model in
birth pain in labor and why drugs to deal with pain are not worth the cost (in
public health, in mother-baby attachment, in money, resources, and women's
empowerment)
*where feminism has missed the boat in birth by failing to support either
natural normal birth or midwifery home birth as a rational choice for healthy
women, and why many intelligent women go to huge lengths to avoid
hospitalization for birth today (there being, in fact, no good scientific
evidence from any country that supports routine hospitalization for birth and
much evidence about the negative side of routine US birth practices)
*what happened to the alternative birth movement, that was burgeoning in the mid
1970s to cause today's pregnant woman to be such a passive, compliant
"patient"?
Finally, does it seem strange to any of you that in this day and age two men
should be the ones debating the issue that is of such intense, private and
intimate concern to 4 million women per year?
Sincerely,
Suzanne Arms
producer of the Birthing The Future Series and Giving Birth: Challenges &
Choices
Durango, CO
|
