The Meaning of Suffering-Birth stats
Buddhist Koan: "Move away from the suffering, more suffering."
FILM in two parts:
The Business of being born: part 1
The Business of being born: part 2
U.S.
FILM in two parts:
The Business of being born: part 1
The Business of being born: part 2
U.S.
C-section average cost- $14,000
Natural birth- $10,000
$2,250 a night for a hospital stay
Switzerland
C-section- $11,000
Natural birth- $8,200
Australia
C-section- $10,500
Natural Birth- $6,700
Netherlands
C-section- $5,000
Natural birth- $3,000
Argentina
C-section- $3,200
Natural birth- $2,400
Spain
Natural birth- $2,400
Delhi $240 and can increase when choosing private facilities
South Africa $2,000 to have a baby in a private sector
These results are averages from 2012:
Country
|
Vaginal
|
C-Section
|
Infant Mortality(per 1,00 live births)
|
United States
|
$9,775
|
$15,041
|
6
|
Switzerland
|
$4,039
|
$5,186
|
4
|
France
|
$3,541
|
$6,441
|
4
|
Chile
|
$2,992
|
$3,378
|
7
|
Netherlands
|
$2,669
|
$5,328
|
4
|
Britain
|
$2,641
|
$4,435
|
4
|
South Africa
|
$2,035
|
$3,449
|
37
|
Birth activists have mountains of scientific data on their side, but this data has made little difference in the practice of birth.
- Routine electronic fetal monitoring remains pervasive, even though it does not improve outcomes and raises the incidence of unnecessary cesareans.
- Induction of labor increases prematurity rates and labor complications, but its use has skyrocketed to more than 53 percent in the past decade. (I can say with certainty that no woman should allow herself to be induced before 39—ideally 40— weeks for any reason beyond extreme complications. Obste- tricians who recommend or perform too-early inductions are acting irresponsibly, and against the scientific evidence that shows that far too many babies end up in the NICU because of early inductions.)
- Epidurals can slow labor, generate fevers and necessitate further interventions for both mother and baby (who will end up in the NICU if the mother does develop a fever).
- Cesareans generate higher rates of infection and other complications (including death) than vaginal birth, but the cesarean rate in the U.S. is at an all-time high of 32 percent. Doctors “know” that they are giving women “the best care,” and “what they really want.” Birth activists, including myself, know that this “best care” is too often a travesty of what birth can be. And yet on that existential brink, I tremble at the birth activist’s coding of women as “not knowing.” So, here’s to women educating themselves on healthy, safe birth practices—to women knowing what is best for themselves and their babies, and to women rising above everything else.
Davis-Floyd argues that in America the dominant beliefs and practices surrounding birth are based on the "technocratic model" of reality, a model which she says American culture has inherited from the Scientific Revolution, when "machine replaced the organism as the underlying metaphor for the organization of man’s universe," and a model which has served the needs of industrial capitalism (Davis-Floyd 1992: 44). She argues that this technocratic model, which is based on the primacy and domination of culture over nature, reproduces patriarchy by constructing women's bodies as weak and requiring male-controlled technologies (Davis-Floyd 1992: 152). (See also Martin [1987] on the relationship between industrial capitalism, the machine model of the body, and women's reproductive experiences).
Davis-Floyd demonstrates that many of the obstetric practices which are routinized in hospital-based births in America are not "scientifically'' grounded but rather are highly symbolic rituals which serve to reaffirm the dominant technocratic model and to instill this model within the psyches and bodies of members of society. For example, in Chapter 3 she argues that such ·'standard procedures for normal birth"' as the use of wheelchairs; the ·'prep'' (involving shaves, IVs, and enemas); the hospital gown and bed; the electronic fetal monitor; various medications; and episiotomies, among others, are not medically necessary, but rather are routinely used as symbols to transfer core American values.
In Chapter 4 Davis-Floyd focuses on the ways in which this technocratic model is accepted, negotiated, or rejected by individual members of society. She argues that there are essentially only two mutually exclusive models available to American women -the holistic model and the technocratic model -and that a woman's response to a technocratic birth will depend on the degree of cognitive fit between her view of birth and that promulgated by the tech- nocratic model.
The largest percentage of the women interviewed (42%) fell into the category of women who experienced "conceptual fusion with the technocratic model: with cognitive ease." These were primarily women who hoped for a ··natural birth" but who in fact had highly technocratic births (whether through use of medication or C- sections, or both) and yet who came away from their experience believing that such medical interventions were necessary (Davis-Floyd 1992: 219).1n addition, Davis-Floyd reports seven other categories of responses, ranging
from full acceptance of the technocratic model of birth to effective resistance of it. Her study shows there is a great deal of variety in the conceptualization and experiences of birth within a given culture even if the technocratic model is dominant.
Although Davis-Floyd is personally disturbed by the fact that the majority of women accept the technocratic model of birth, she maintains that the majority of women accept it because it is what they “want"; they choose to accept this model (Davis-Floyd 1992: 282). In fact she says that for some women, accepting a technocratic birth is empowering because by doing so they are upholding and participating in the values of American culture and are thus not left outside of culture and assigned to the less valued realm of nature, as was more often the case in the 19th century (Davis-Floyd 1992: 282).
This is an unsettling conclusion. For, on the one hand she argues that the technocratic model of birth serves to devalue women, yet simultaneously she suggests that the acceptance of such cultural norms itself empowers women. Davis-Floyd needs to look more critically at the extent to which women are really exercising choice in the process of accepting the technocratic model, and the extent to which agency is in and of itself empowering. In fact in her later discussion on the future of reproductive technologies, such as in-vitro fertilization, surrogate parents, etc. (Chapter 8), she reaffirms her conviction that the technocratic model is disempowering. As she writes:
Based as it is on this assumption of her inherent physiological inferiority to men, and for as long as it holds conceptual hegemony over this nation, that model will guarantee her continued psychological disempowerment by the everyday constructs of the culture at large, and her alienation both from political power and from the physiological attributes of womanhood (Davis-Floyd 1992: 291).
Thus, we are left with a sense of ambiguity as to where Davis-Floyd stands on the question of choice versus mystification.
One of the drawbacks of Davis-Floyd’sstudy is that she does not explore class and ethnic factor w h i c h might lead women to hold the models they do and which might enable certain women to hold onto these models in the face of opposition in the hos pital. In fact her study is focused exclusively on a particular segment of American society: middle class white women. She argues that such a narrow selection serves to reinforce her thesis that the rite of passage which takes place in the context of technocratic birth is highly successful, for if the majority of women in this more privileged and powerful segment of society are unable to resist the technocratic model, then surely lower class minority women will not be able to successfully resist or change it either (Davis-Floyd 1992: 4). In fact this may not be the case, as other recent anthropological studies on birth such as Martin's (1987: 181-193) and Rapp's (1991) suggest.
Furthermore, a more sociologically complex study might throw into question Davis-Floyd's generalizations about gender categories, such as her suggestion that the technocratic model views "women's" bodies as inferior while the holistic model celebrates "women’s" bodies, and her suggestion that the technocratic model is based on a "male perspective" while the holistic model is based on a ··female perspective" (Davis-Floyd 1992: 160).
HISTORY: MODES OF PRODUCTION
Although Davis-Floyd is personally disturbed by the fact that the majority of women accept the technocratic model of birth, she maintains that the majority of women accept it because it is what they “want"; they choose to accept this model (Davis-Floyd 1992: 282). In fact she says that for some women, accepting a technocratic birth is empowering because by doing so they are upholding and participating in the values of American culture and are thus not left outside of culture and assigned to the less valued realm of nature, as was more often the case in the 19th century (Davis-Floyd 1992: 282).
This is an unsettling conclusion. For, on the one hand she argues that the technocratic model of birth serves to devalue women, yet simultaneously she suggests that the acceptance of such cultural norms itself empowers women. Davis-Floyd needs to look more critically at the extent to which women are really exercising choice in the process of accepting the technocratic model, and the extent to which agency is in and of itself empowering. In fact in her later discussion on the future of reproductive technologies, such as in-vitro fertilization, surrogate parents, etc. (Chapter 8), she reaffirms her conviction that the technocratic model is disempowering. As she writes:
Based as it is on this assumption of her inherent physiological inferiority to men, and for as long as it holds conceptual hegemony over this nation, that model will guarantee her continued psychological disempowerment by the everyday constructs of the culture at large, and her alienation both from political power and from the physiological attributes of womanhood (Davis-Floyd 1992: 291).
Thus, we are left with a sense of ambiguity as to where Davis-Floyd stands on the question of choice versus mystification.
One of the drawbacks of Davis-Floyd’sstudy is that she does not explore class and ethnic factor w h i c h might lead women to hold the models they do and which might enable certain women to hold onto these models in the face of opposition in the hos pital. In fact her study is focused exclusively on a particular segment of American society: middle class white women. She argues that such a narrow selection serves to reinforce her thesis that the rite of passage which takes place in the context of technocratic birth is highly successful, for if the majority of women in this more privileged and powerful segment of society are unable to resist the technocratic model, then surely lower class minority women will not be able to successfully resist or change it either (Davis-Floyd 1992: 4). In fact this may not be the case, as other recent anthropological studies on birth such as Martin's (1987: 181-193) and Rapp's (1991) suggest.
Furthermore, a more sociologically complex study might throw into question Davis-Floyd's generalizations about gender categories, such as her suggestion that the technocratic model views "women's" bodies as inferior while the holistic model celebrates "women’s" bodies, and her suggestion that the technocratic model is based on a "male perspective" while the holistic model is based on a ··female perspective" (Davis-Floyd 1992: 160).
HISTORY: MODES OF PRODUCTION
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-31052665
https://www.facebook.com/habipti.ari/posts/232990743714844?pnref=story.unseen-sectionhttps://www.facebook.com/habipti.ari/posts/232990743714844?pnref=story.unseen-section
Brazil Birth Story
Brazil Birth Story
Average birth cost in the Philippines
Normal delivery 59,400 Philippine Peso converted to US dollars $1,283
C- section 109,750 Philippine Peso converted to US dollars $2,371
Infant mortality rate: total: 17.64 deaths/1,000 live births
male: 19.99 deaths/1,000 live births
female: 15.17 deaths/1,000 live births (2014 est.)
Average birth cost in Mexico
Mexico
State hospital: $0
Private hospital: $280 to $3,000
In the United States!!
New Jersey is the most expensive state to have a baby. The average hospital charge for a vaginal delivery in New Jersey is $18,372 — 91 percent higher than the national average. The average C-section in New Jersey costs $26,743, 69 percent higher than the national average.
California ranks second as the most expensive ($14,523 for the average vaginal delivery, $24,777 for C-section),
Florida ranks third ($10,435 for the average vaginal delivery, $18,574 for C-section).
At the bottom of the list and least expensive: Maryland. Hospitals in Maryland charge an average of $5,509 for vaginal deliveries and $6,812 for C-sections — well below the national averages.
USA
- Health care: Privatized organizations which is starting to become more socialized in coming years.
- Price of birth: $9,775 for an uncomplicated conventional delivery and $15,041 for a caesarean birth
- Number of infant deaths: 23,440
- Birth rate: 12.5 per 1000
- Maternity mortality: 17.8 out of 100,000 per live births
- Price of wasted resources with infant mortality: There are no current estimates for the total cost of infant mortality at the national level.
Chile
- Health care: In urban areas private insurance companies are used by the wealthy and in rural areas it is very rare to have health care coverage.
- Number of infant deaths: 9.0 to 5.7 per 1000 births
- Birth rate: 13.97 per 1000
- Price of birth: It cost about $10,910 American dollars for a complicated C-Section birth. Also a regular delivery without complications is just $3,805 American dollars.
- Maternal mortality: 25 out of 100,000 per live births
- Price of wasted resources with infant mortality: $26,950 for every 1000 births.
Philippines
- Health care: Health insurance is primarily used by the elite and the poor in all of the country usually do not have a health care. It really does not matter if the poor are in the cities or rural areas.
- Number of Infant deaths: 35 deaths per 1000 births
- Birth rate: 19.0 births per 1000
- Price of birth: In the hospital the average cost for child birth is $82,000.
- Maternal mortality: 52 per 100,000 live births
- Price of wasted resources with infant mortality: It is very hard to find a price resources wasted with infant mortality because the low numbers of children actually being born in hospitals.
India
- Health care: Just like in the Philippines, health insurance is primarily used by the elite and the poor in all of the country usually do not have a health care. It really does not matter if the poor are in the cities or rural areas.
- Number of Infant deaths: 39 deaths out of 1000 births
- Birth Rate: 20 out of 1000
- Price: The Average cost is about 10,000 United States dollars
- Maternal Mortality: 178 per 100,000 live births
- Price of wasted resources with infant mortality: Yet again, it is actually harder to find the dollar amount of infant mortality because of the number of deaths during home and rural births.
Interesting statistics from a NY Times article titled “Paying Till it Hurts: Cash on Delivery”
Cumulative costs for approximately four million annual births in US is well over $50 billion
In US, we pay individually for each service and pay more for services received
Pregnancy is billed item by item only in the US
In 2011, 62% of women in the US covered by private healthcare plans lacked maternity coverage
Even with insurance coverage, women pay an out of pocket average of $3,400
In most other developed countries, comprehensive maternity care is free or cheap for all (considered vital to ensuring health of future generations)
An epidural is $100 in Germany, but $750 in US
Statement after delivery without any discounts; not an official bill:
Hospital charges
$20,257
Obstetrician
4,020
Anesthesiologist
3,278
Drugs
1,125
Bills for prenatal care:
Emergency visit
1,600
Genetic testing
1,500
Ultrasound
1,191
Radiology
520
Hematologist
346
Comments
Post a Comment