Modern medicine leaves soon-to-be mothers with one major decision:
How will she give birth?
There was once a time in history where that question had a single answer, but this was not always the safest answer, as is the case with even some of today’s methods.
In America, society is primarily fueled by a right to choose, leading to an expansion of the methods of birth. Mothers nowadays find that they wish to know all of their options regarding their health and the health of their unborn child. As a result, 29% of American births are considered “alternative.” However, these options --water births, home delivery, lotus births--, all focus on the aspects of natural delivery. It stands to question why alternatives methods of birth have not developed on the surgical front. Mothers may not always make the same decisions, but they do share a common interest:
The health of their baby and comfort in the delivery room.
Nine and a half months ago, first time mother, twenty two year old Anita Baker, and fourth time mother, thirty nine year old Lisa Campbell, developed a mutual friendship within their lamaze class. The class was made up of a variety of mothers, some wanting forms of natural delivery, others wanting pitocin and epidural, and some who elected Caesarean sections. Despite this, all found unity in their shared want of knowledge should they have to deliver their baby naturally.
However, Baker and Campbell discovered a common interest that created disunity between themselves and the other mothers. Although both elected to receive Caesarean sections, they share the hope they may pioneer a new option for women on this front. One that, in their eyes, makes the Caesarean section as magical as any natural birth and increases the safety their child in the moments following delivery.
“It was Lisa got me stuck and stubborn as can be on this,” Baker told us. “I was torn between gettin’ all messed up down there because of the baby and all, but I didn’t want to miss seein’ my kid come outta my body, you know? The other moms think we’re insane, and so do our baby daddies, but I just kinda shrug ‘em off. I mean, it’s my body. What can they do about it, you know?”
Typically, hospital procedure for the performance of the Caesarean section involves putting some sort of paper blinder just above the mother’s stomach so she cannot see the procedure as well as not feel it. Baker and Campbell want to be the first mothers to make this an optional feature of the procedure.
“I just don’t see what the point is!” said Campbell. “Women who push their babies out get to see it happen! Some even get a little mirror to see the head! Why can’t I see my baby slide out just because it happens to be sliding out of my abdomen?”
A valid notion. 31.8% of births in America today occur through Caesarean section, meaning 1.3 million births are a result of this procedure. That also means that 31.8% of mothers are missing out on that moment where they see their child breath its first lungful of air to create its first crackling cry. However, recent discoveries reveal that this is not just stealing the magic of the moment but heightening the danger of an otherwise generally safe surgery.
While mothers want to reach out for their child and soothe it’s small red face with the sight of her own, the baby receives no such soothing sight. Instead, its first breath is choked with fear at the sight of the masked surgeons and the cold teal barrier that blocks his or her first view of the vessel of warmth and comfort he or she has known for nine months.
Dr. Ken Matheson, a renowned Canadian obstetrician with a minor in Psychology, reports these findings on this phenomenon in The Physical and Mental Health of Children medical journal:
“I believe that children are quite traumatized when thrust out of the womb so abruptly after excision from the mother. Once, during a dual delivery I took over, the first of the twins, Jimmy, came naturally without complications. His breach brother, Tommy, was a different story. We rushed the mother to surgery, administered the drugs and set up the room, including the blinder. Everything went fine from there until we got the baby out. His little eyes and hands began searching for his mother and his warmth immediately, but he only found foreign air. His first breath was a little cough, and little Tommy didn’t breath again for over a minute. Now the poor kid has severe asthma, and I blame myself. I ask, was it worth it to unite the brothers, if Tommy can’t even play with Jimmy now? I just wish the kid got to see his mother’s face. Maybe then I’d be happy to see him up and walking now.”
This sort of incident is precisely what Baker and Campbell say they’d hope to avoid.
“Why should I have to deliver my baby naturally to feel a connection and protect her?” Campbell asked her doctor after her last ultrasound. “I should be able to have it both ways. It’s a double standard, and it’s just not fair.”
Many surgeons and obstetricians disregarded the mothers in their wishes and arguments, merely waving it off as a foolish notion. The primary contention towards this new method is that the low risk of the coined “barrier-sections” versus that of so-called high risk “open-sections” is not worth the chance. Of course, these medical professionals are the kind that deny responsibility when the one in every ten Caesarean births ends in the death of the child as a result of the aforementioned phenomenon. Studies like Matheson’s prove that this statistic is virtually nonexistent when Caesarean deliveries occurred without a blinding teal barrier.
“Although I’ve only performed this procedure a handful of times,” said Matheson. “I’ve never experienced complications with the welfare of the child during a barrier free birth.”
Others, a part of the national organization Mothers for Natural & Alternative Birth (MNAB), report that a natural birth lowers the chances of this phenomenon as well, attempting to support their claims that elective Caesareans are unnecessary freedoms. While they focus primarily to prove the “risks” at hand for the mother, they also disregard aspects of Matheson’s study that hurt their credibility.
For instance, studies in the report show that the time elapsed between a delivery from the lower extremities of a woman to when the child views the mother ranges from two to five minutes. This is typically the same delay that occurs during a barrier-section. Meanwhile, a child’s view of his or her mother upon withdrawal from the abdominal region (in absence of the obscuring barrier) is practically immediate. In fact, children born naturally are 45% more likely to suffer from the phenomenon than children born as a result of a barrier free Caesarean section.
These facts influenced the decisions of mothers, Baker and Campbell, as it should all mothers. Arguments and recommendations from their regular doctors did not sway them.
As their due date approached, Baker and Campbell pursued their ambition, enlisting the services of Dr. Matheson to deliver their babies.
“I was ecstatic to hear that two mothers appreciated my research report as much as I did,” Matheson explains. “I only wish more mothers would consider the safety of their child as much as this pair.”
“You know, Lisa’s husband was behind her and all, but mine still says I’m a lunatic,” joked Baker seven months later. “He says he ain’t even gonna be in the room if he can see it all. Like, the other day, Jamie said he’d rather go blind than see me go under the knife with a bunch of doctors rootin’ around up inside me.”
Her Caesarean section, free of the teal blinder, came the next day. Dr. Matheson went into surgery with full confidence that everything would run smoothly. Outside the surgery room, where Campbell waited beside Baker’s husband (who refused to speak to us), she made this comment:
“Am I jealous that Anita gets to go first? Absolutely. But her baby’s a month ahead of mine. That’s just the way nature goes, and I have to embrace nature as it is.”
Who could argue nature? More importantly, who could deny nature when it comes in the form of a safe, warm, and caring surgical procedure?
Two days later, after receiving assurance that Baker and her new son recovered well, we returned to interview her from her hospital bed about her magical experience.
“I stand by my decision,” Baker said. “But I don’t wanna go into much detail. I saw Dr. Matheson go in for the first cut, and, even though I couldn’t feel nothin’ from all them drugs, I nearly was squeezin’ my eyes shut. I remembered then what Lisa and I were talkin’ about, and a few minutes later, I saw little Jamie Jr. slidin' on out of me, his little body still attached to that little cord and all bloody! I was thinkin’ somethin’ was wrong until I swear, his little head turned to look at me! It was all so excitin’ and magical, especially with those drugs that got me a little bit loopy!”
Meanwhile, Campbell awaits her delivery day and will say only one thing.
“If the blood and scar are as magical as Anita’s, I don’t care how drugged up I am, as long as I can see it all.”
When asked if either intended to go a step further in the future and view the surgery without the “loopy” drugs, neither of the pioneering mothers had a personal response prepared.
Campbell did provide a response which she directed at other mothers, however:
"It doesn't matter what you want done to your body," she said. "What matters is our freedom of choice over our bodies, no matter if we want to watch our surgery or feel it or both."
She truly puts it best. A woman's right to elect a c-section isn't enough in our age, for women deserve choice. If choice must come as picking and choosing surgical details, so be it. Especially when the easily accessible facts prove that this is the best method of safe delivery for both mother and baby.
"I'm just happy that we're moving towards a future where a door is open for women to have greater control over their bodies," said Matheson. "Women understand the risk that comes with the choice. The chances that the risk will pan out are so low that continued restriction over choice is practically moot."
Even more moot is informing mothers of the risk that comes with increased surgical independence. Modern technique is so refined that any argument of "decreased bodily safety" not only steals a woman's medical autonomy but also snatches away those little moments of magic that preserve the safety of the newborn. MNAB maintains that mothers are put at risk by multiple surgeries, but they (unlike Matheson) are unable to prove their theories, making their argument obsolete.
If any medical professionals still remain unconvinced, they do not have to agree with anything previously argued to see the potential. Surgeries that are specialized or considered "higher risk" cost patients and insurance companies more than average births and surgeries. Therefore, increasing surgical independence of mothers increases the surgeon's income, making this a mutually beneficial option for all parties involved. (plus, Caesareans --unlike natural births-- can be scheduled around an obstetrician’s family vacations and out of work activities, an added bonus for their personal lives)
So what are doctors waiting for? More pioneers like Campbell, Baker, and Matheson. Until more mothers and doctors join this worthy cause to protect our children, we are exponentially limiting ourselves to unhealthy hospital environments and lost financial opportunities.
In the meantime, mothers will continue to risk choosing the wrong answer when faced with that single decision:
How will she give birth?
How will she give birth?
