Despite mounting medical evidence to the contrary, women around this country are being told that if they want to have a child after they’ve had a cesarean, they must undergo another cesarean delivery for the birth of their next baby. Though the cesarean may be unwarranted and unwanted, these women are often left without any choice but to have this major abdominal surgery for no other reason than a paper policy written by a hospital administration who has never met, nor treated these women. However, according to the AMA, the ACOG, and the letter of law, forcing a woman to have repeat cesarean is unethical, unprofessional, and unlawful.
How is it, then, that some hospitals have found it within their right to “ban” women from birthing babies through their own vaginas? Why are some hospitals telling women they will not provide them with treatment unless they agree to a cesarean delivery, as opposed to a vaginal delivery? According to the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA), any hospital participating in the Medicare and Medicaid program (which is most) cannot refuse treatment to a woman in active labor, even a woman refusing surgery. The law simply does not support bans on vaginal birth. Women do not forfeit the right to make their own medical decisions when they become pregnant. On the contrary, they carry the responsibility of making medical decisions for the benefit of themselves, and their unborn child(ren.)
Aside from the medicolegal problems with forcing a woman into surgery, one must wonder about the ethical and moral significance of denying a women her own basic biological function. Many women feel a tremendous sense of loss, violation, or defeat if they are unable to experience the birthing of their baby on their own terms. These women can develop such a fear of repeating that experience that they stop having children. Many women choose to birth future children outside the hospital to circumvent the system all together. Whatever their decision, many mothers felt they had little say in the matter because their hospital or provider could not be trusted to respect their wishes. Some mothers say their choice might have been different if they knew a hospital could support their basic human right to bodily integrity.
Our Supreme Court upholds the right for a woman to choose whether or not she carries a pregnancy, and that same autonomy should be afforded to the manner in which she delivers her child. At the end of the day, the woman (and her baby) live with the outcome of any delivery. It is her body. Her baby. Her choice.
In a civilized society like ours, no woman should feel that she has been forced under a knife. Women are human beings, and human beings in this country have the right to keep people out of their body. If providers want to be taken seriously, they need to start taking their patient’s human rights seriously as well.
______________________________________
If VBAC access is important to you, call in to The Feminist Breeder & Friends Radio Show Sunday night at 10 PM Eastern time to have your voice heard. Special guests Desirre Andrews, President of ICAN, and Michele Demont, creator of Birthcut.com, will help me kick off my coverage of the National Institute of Health’s conference on Vaginal Birth After Cesarean.
Following a c-section for my first child, I was actively encouraged to have a VBAC for my second (and was in fact made to feel I was being actively annoying because I wanted another c-section) and here in the UK I think that attitude is now pretty common in most hospitals. It's all to do with money over here too, tho - a c-section costs the NHS way more than a VBAC. Over here, lots of people are complaining about the increase in c-section rates - those 'people' being the government, who, again for financial reasons, are pressuring hospitals to bring the rates down.
- spam
- offensive
- disagree
- off topic
Like