Author Topic: Pain Medicine During Childbirth is Immoral (Read 24747 times)

Jaynek · « **Reply #75 on:** February 01, 2019, 10:32:00 AM »

Quote from: jen51 on February 01, 2019, 09:46:29 AM

I will say that my husband's stress in the situation does not do me any favors in the stress department, but the medical care for laboring mother's is pretty horrendous and oftentimes unethical and inhuman in this country and my husband insists on being there to ensure that my wishes are respected and that nothing terrible is done to me. I am thankful for this, especially during my first delivery in which much peril was avoided because of my husband's vigilent eye and fearlessness in regards to cranky/careless nurses and obstinate doctors with outdated practices and ethics.

Thanks for writing, Jen. This an important point that I overlooked. Sometimes women are giving birth in situations like you describe where the husband is needed to be a protector and advocate for his wife and child. Of course, a husband should be present when it is something central to his role like that.

This is, however, far from the ideal. Women should not be giving birth in situations that require the husband's intervention. It is tragic that this need so often exists.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #76 on:** February 01, 2019, 10:41:02 AM »

Quote from: Jaynek on February 01, 2019, 10:32:00 AM

Thanks for writing, Jen. This an important point that I overlooked. Sometimes women are giving birth in situations like you describe where the husband is needed to be a protector and advocate for his wife and child. Of course, a husband should be present when it is something central to his role like that.

Very true. Despite our wishes, the nursing staff tries to force the Hep B vaccine on us each time.

Just a Tip: You'll get a much better response if you tell them you wish to delay it ... instead of saying you're anti-vax. Most of them have no issue with the former, but will fight you on the latter.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #77 on:** February 01, 2019, 10:42:46 AM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on February 01, 2019, 09:42:21 AM

I don't know for sure, this is just a guess...I'm thinking that in former times, the men weren't part of the birth because wives didn't need their husbands for "birth support" because the family unit was larger and men just didn't get involved in these types of things. Think about the 30s/40s in America - you had most families with 4+ children, and they all lived close to relatives (cousins, aunts, etc) and highschool friends (because people lived where they grew up). And people got married earlier, so their aunts/grandparents were much, much younger than today.

Great point, Pax. That sounds right. Today with the phenomenon of the atomic family there often isn't any other family around to help support the mother except the husband.

Jaynek · « **Reply #78 on:** February 01, 2019, 11:29:03 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on February 01, 2019, 10:42:46 AM

Great point, Pax. That sounds right. Today with the phenomenon of the atomic family there often isn't any other family around to help support the mother except the husband.

Yes, I also agreed with Pax. I think that various posts have shown the roots of the custom of husbands attending childbirth. It arose as a response to problems in society in general and medical practices in particular. So, while it is not immoral for men to do it, it is required because of a disordered situation.

I think the traditional practice that excluded the husband is closer to the ideal but many of us face conditions in which it is not practical.

Carissima · « **Reply #79 on:** February 01, 2019, 05:17:52 PM »

While I do agree with Pax (most women do not have a significant female support system today) I don’t believe (as some here do) that everything done in the 50’s was always the ideal.

If we went back 70 years ago, men may not have been in the room during birth because there were too many people in the room tending to the mother. Small delivery rooms, plus doctor and nurses don’t leave much room for daddy.

While it may have been a custom in hospitals to give fathers the boot 70 years ago, hospitals are known to make inconvenient rules all the time to protect their backsides from lawsuits. So men being forced to sit in the waiting room may have been to avoid liability issues.

As for me, my husband was present for the births of five of our children including two cesareans where he was in the operating room with me. (He saw no surgery with the curtain up)
But I also don’t think I would have chosen my mother to be there over my husband anyway.
For the other births, my husband stayed by my side holding my hand, so he wasn’t subject to the less pretty part of labor and delivery.
So for those who haven’t been to, or through childbirth, men don’t actually have to watch the birth itself to be in the same room.

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #80 on:** February 03, 2019, 08:22:56 AM »

Quote from: Carissima on February 01, 2019, 05:17:52 PM

... I don’t believe (as some here do) that everything done in the 50’s was always the ideal.

The only two posts in this thread to explicitly mention the 50s were critical of the childbirth practices of the time. (I personally think they were very far from ideal.) While some people talked about traditional childbirth practices, there is no reason to think that "traditional" refers to the 50s.

For most of Western history, not to mention the majority of other human cultures, men did not get involved in labour and delivery. Our society is a historical anomaly in this regard. It is not surprising that this leads some people to question the current practice. What is it about our society that makes us different? While I see nothing inherently immoral about husbands being present, it is not normal.

Jaynek · « **Reply #81 on:** February 03, 2019, 08:26:07 AM »

Quote from: Anonymous on February 03, 2019, 08:22:56 AM

The only two posts in this thread to explicitly mention the 50s were critical of the childbirth practices of the time. (I personally think they were very far from ideal.) While some people talked about traditional childbirth practices, there is no reason to think that "traditional" refers to the 50s.

For most of Western history, not to mention the majority of other human cultures, men did not get involved in labour and delivery. Our society is a historical anomaly in this regard. It is not surprising that this leads some people to question the current practice. What is it about our society that makes us different? While I see nothing inherently immoral about husbands being present, it is not normal.

This is me.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #82 on:** February 03, 2019, 08:33:36 AM »

Quote from: Anonymous on February 03, 2019, 08:22:56 AM

The only two posts in this thread to explicitly mention the 50s were critical of the childbirth practices of the time. (I personally think they were very far from ideal.) While some people talked about traditional childbirth practices, there is no reason to think that "traditional" refers to the 50s.

For most of Western history, not to mention the majority of other human cultures, men did not get involved in labour and delivery. Our society is a historical anomaly in this regard. It is not surprising that this leads some people to question the current practice. What is it about our society that makes us different? While I see nothing inherently immoral about husbands being present, it is not normal.

Well, unlike Church traditions, social traditions like those don't necessarily have any kind of authority behind them. For the longest time, people used to smoke cigarettes everywhere too. I remember seeing a retro commercial about how "4 out of 5 doctors smoke [a certain brand]", and one of them was lighting up right next to a patient. Some social changes can in fact represent true progress. We really have to avoid this tendency (common among Traditionalists) that (simplistically) old=good, new=bad. That's not ALWAYS the case. People were subject to Original Sin in the past too, you know.

So we need to dig into the WHYs and not just cite this practice as normative in principle. As Pax pointed out, in the past women had more female relatives in a support structure, and would perhaps have been more comforted by having around them people who actually had gone through childbirth and knew what she was experiencing. Someone mentioned that women perhaps would not want their husbands to see them all disheveled. Neither of these is super compelling. For a woman (and it's most women today) who lack those support structures, what's left is some notion that the woman would retain her dignity more if her husband didn't see her like that, or that the husband might stress her out (not true in the case of all men) ... none of this is particularly compelling. I know quite a few men (myself included) who are far more calm under pressure than their wives. Traditional practices certainly carry SOME weight behind them, but they need to be deconstructed to understand the rationale behind them, and whether those pertain to the historical context or other circuмstances that are subject to change. Or, another consideration, was it believed that men, after witnessing childbirth, might be somehow less attracted to their wives and less inclined to have marital relations ... and to have more children in general? Not sure.

Most women today would be offended if their husband weren't in the delivery room with them ... except for those who have husbands who "freak out" ... and those women probably wished that their husbands weren't quite so pusillanimous and would lend them the strength that men are supposed to support their wives with.

Jaynek · « **Reply #83 on:** February 03, 2019, 09:42:55 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on February 03, 2019, 08:33:36 AM

Well, unlike Church traditions, social traditions like those don't necessarily have any kind of authority behind them. For the longest time, people used to smoke cigarettes everywhere too. I remember seeing a retro commercial about how "4 out of 5 doctors smoke [a certain brand]", and one of them was lighting up right next to a patient. Some social changes can in fact represent true progress. We really have to avoid this tendency (common among Traditionalists) that (simplistically) old=good, new=bad. That's not ALWAYS the case. People were subject to Original Sin in the past too, you know.

So we need to dig into the WHYs and not just cite this practice as normative in principle. As Pax pointed out, in the past women had more female relatives in a support structure, and would perhaps have been more comforted by having around them people who actually had gone through childbirth and knew what she was experiencing. Someone mentioned that women perhaps would not want their husbands to see them all disheveled. Neither of these is super compelling. For a woman (and it's most women today) who lack those support structures, what's left is some notion that the woman would retain her dignity more if her husband didn't see her like that, or that the husband might stress her out (not true in the case of all men) ... none of this is particularly compelling. I know quite a few men (myself included) who are far more calm under pressure than their wives. Traditional practices certainly carry SOME weight behind them, but they need to be deconstructed to understand the rationale behind them, and whether those pertain to the historical context or other circuмstances that are subject to change. Or, another consideration, was it believed that men, after witnessing childbirth, might be somehow less attracted to their wives and less inclined to have marital relations ... and to have more children in general? Not sure.

Traditional practices are not necessarily right, but they do carry weight. I go so far as to consider them the default. We should never abandon traditional practices without careful thought. And I don't believe in social progress. Any apparent social gains invariably carry a social cost. The human condition does not improve because we are only sojourners in this world and our true home is heaven.

Trads understandably gravitate toward the old and are suspicious of the new. To a large extent that is what makes us trads. And it is a reasonable reaction to living in a culture that simplistically tends to accept old=bad, new=good.

Quote from: Ladislaus on February 03, 2019, 08:33:36 AM

Most women today would be offended if their husband weren't in the delivery room with them ... except for those who have husbands who "freak out" ... and those women probably wished that their husbands weren't quite so pusillanimous and would lend them the strength that men are supposed to support their wives with.

Most women are offended about their husband not being present because they are taught to be offended. This was never a problem before now. It is disturbing that you foster this by referring to men who do not wish to be present as pusillanimous. This may allow you to feel superior to other men, but you are encouraging women to be dissatisfied/ demanding with their husband. Don't you think that marriage comes under attack enough without you adding to it?

I do not consider it a weakness in my husband that he finds it difficult to see me in pain. He is like that because he loves me so much that my pain hurts him more than his own. I would not change this if I could. I would rather have him than any other man in the world and cannot imagine a better husband. But this quality does not make him well-suited to be a birth attendant. He does not object to doing it; I would prefer not to have him there.

Women should have support during childbirth. Traditionally this support came from women with training and/or personal experience of childbirth. I suspect that most women would prefer this if given the choice. I know that I would. We are, however, living in a situation where this is regularly not possible, so husbands often do it. But there is no reason to look down on husbands who do not do it or who are reluctant to do it. Their feelings are perfectly normal and understandable.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #84 on:** February 03, 2019, 10:00:59 AM »

Quote from: Jaynek on February 03, 2019, 09:42:55 AM

Traditional practices are not necessarily right, but they do carry weight. I go so far as to consider them the default. We should never abandon traditional practices without careful thought. And I don't believe in social progress. Any apparent social gains invariably carry a social cost. The human condition does not improve because we are only sojourners in this world and our true home is heaven.

Trads understandably gravitate toward the old and are suspicious of the new. To a large extent that is what makes us trads. And it is a reasonable reaction to living in a culture that simplistically tends to accept old=bad, new=good.

I said that we should give it weight. But that's as far as it goes. Human society, due to Original Sin, is in a constant state of decay. That's why at various times even in Church history, saints had to come along and "reform" the various religious orders. If this is true even within the Church, then how much more in society itself which tends to drift away from God? Our Lord made a point of uprooting the corrupt "tradtions of men" that had infected the true religion already by His day. There were times during the Middle Ages when every other priest had a mistress, and times during the Renaissance when people were given over to all manner of hedonism and depravity. Some of the most perverse practice of human history have the weight of antiquity behind them. Bishop Williamson clearly traces many of these trends toward decay. Giving traditional practice some weight is as far as we go, and no it's not reasonable to be simplistic. I'll address your other points later.

Jaynek · « **Reply #85 on:** February 03, 2019, 10:20:03 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on February 03, 2019, 10:00:59 AM

Giving traditional practice some weight is as far as we go, and no it's not reasonable to be simplistic.

You have been approaching this issue by asking what good reasons are there to do things differently from the current practice. You are apparently assuming it must be good unless shown otherwise. In effect, you put the burden of proof on showing the traditional way was better.

I do the opposite. I assume the old way way is better unless there is good reason to believe otherwise. I put the burden of proof on those who would claim it is better for husbands to attend births than trained, experienced women. While I am quite willing to concede that we are in a situation in which the ideal is rarely possible, I think that the traditional practice represents the ideal.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #86 on:** February 03, 2019, 10:42:54 AM »

Quote from: Jaynek on February 03, 2019, 10:20:03 AM

You have been approaching this issue by asking what good reasons are there to do things differently from the current practice. You are apparently assuming it must be good unless shown otherwise. In effect, you put the burden of proof on showing the traditional way was better.

I do the opposite. I assume the old way way is better unless there is good reason to believe otherwise. I put the burden of proof on those who would claim it is better for husbands to attend births than trained, experienced women. While I am quite willing to concede that we are in a situation in which the ideal is rarely possible, I think that the traditional practice represents the ideal.

Well, the reasons pro or con cannot be understood unless the reasons for the prior practice are known. That's why I'm probing into the reasons. Otherwise, our reasoning would simply stop at "well, it's the way it used to be done." I'm not content with that. It could be that the rationale is context-sensitive vs. some kind of universal principle, and context changes over time. Or it could be something more universal that is not subject to change. That's what I'm trying to get at. Unlike Church doctrine, I do not consider social customs to be sacrosanct.

Jaynek · « **Reply #87 on:** February 03, 2019, 11:09:16 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on February 03, 2019, 10:42:54 AM

Well, the reasons pro or con cannot be understood unless the reasons for the prior practice are known. That's why I'm probing into the reasons. Otherwise, our reasoning would simply stop at "well, it's the way it used to be done." I'm not content with that. It could be that the rationale is context-sensitive vs. some kind of universal principle, and context changes over time. Or it could be something more universal that is not subject to change. That's what I'm trying to get at. Unlike Church doctrine, I do not consider social customs to be sacrosanct.

Of course, social customs are neither sacrosanct nor authoritative. I doubt that anyone here is claiming otherwise.

I think one universal principle involved in this issue is that people tend to get better at tasks through experience and practice. When childbirth was attended by women only, there were often women around who had attended dozens or even hundreds of births. These female attendants often had had many children of their own. How many births will a husband have attended? Likely none if it is his first child and not many even if it's a subsequent child. And the husband has never had a baby and never will.

Just considering the question of experience, it is obvious which we could expect to do a better job.

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #88 on:** February 03, 2019, 11:11:27 AM »

I agree that before abandoning, and perhaps even before re-establishing, traditional practices, we must think long and hard about why those practices were established in the first place, what purpose they served, and if they still serve that purpose. It would be interesting to see if any writers in the past discussed why men didn't attend births - it'd be hard to find I'd imagine, as to them the reasons probably seemed obvious, but if such writings could be found it'd give us a much clearer insight than just arguing hypotheticals back and forth.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #89 on:** February 03, 2019, 11:12:59 AM »

In referring to pusillanimous men earlier, I was not referring to case where the wife doesn't want to see his husband suffering in seeing her suffer. I was referring to the type of man who gets anxious and frantic and causes anxiety for his wife ... or situations where the husband doesn't want to endure the suffering ... so that he's unable to bring comfort and strength to his wife, rather than increased anxiety and discomfort.

If my wife is suffering, I want to be there with her, even if it causes me suffering. If my child is suffering, I want to be there. I'm not going to go run and hide because I'm afraid of my own suffering. I've watched my wife suffer (not only child birth but broken bones) and my children suffer (with a broken arm and other things) ... but I would never run away from them because it caused me pain.

Even in the former case, should we not strive emulate Our Lord, whose suffering increased infinitely because He saw Our Lady suffering?

Author Topic: Pain Medicine During Childbirth is Immoral (Read 24747 times)

Jaynek

Re: Pain Medecine During Childbirth is Immoral

Ladislaus

Re: Pain Medecine During Childbirth is Immoral

Ladislaus

Re: Pain Medecine During Childbirth is Immoral

Jaynek

Re: Pain Medecine During Childbirth is Immoral

Carissima

Re: Pain Medecine During Childbirth is Immoral

Änσnymσus

Re: Pain Medecine During Childbirth is Immoral

Jaynek

Re: Pain Medecine During Childbirth is Immoral

Ladislaus

Re: Pain Medecine During Childbirth is Immoral

Jaynek

Re: Pain Medecine During Childbirth is Immoral

Ladislaus

Re: Pain Medecine During Childbirth is Immoral

Jaynek

Re: Pain Medecine During Childbirth is Immoral

Ladislaus

Re: Pain Medecine During Childbirth is Immoral

Jaynek

Re: Pain Medecine During Childbirth is Immoral

Änσnymσus

Re: Pain Medecine During Childbirth is Immoral

Ladislaus

Re: Pain Medecine During Childbirth is Immoral