I'm on my way out so I'll throw one post at this discussion and be on my way. First I'll stress that I'm not a medical professional at this moment but I do have some limited experience treating patients from the other side of the medical field. Some quick thoughts are: - People do not think or act rationally when they are afraid, under stress, and/or drugged up. I've had patients refuse basic diagnostic exams like ECGs, blood pressure, even just putting on a gown because it made them feel uncomfortable. Rationally speaking, there's no reason they should refuse these things, and I'm sure outside of the hospital they would not theoretically have thought to object to it. Once you're scared for your health and wellbeing, you start acting irrationally. Besides the fact that I'm sure some mothers are retroactively remembering things differently due to all the stress of the event, there is also the fact that doctors have to outrightly coerce patients into doing things they don't want to. Sometimes, that's because those patients are just too scared to do it unless they're bullied into it a bit. Sometimes being a bully is part of providing good care. - Sometimes coercion doesn't cut it and the safety of the patient and those around him supersedes his consent. I've restrained patients during procedures because they either don't have a solid presence of mind or because the pain of the procedure makes them instinctively resist. I had to restrain a tough-as-nails Marine during a spinal tap because he would have thrashed otherwise—that was the only way it could be done. I've never delivered babies but I'm sure in most cases telling a mother to calm down doesn't work and sometimes the only thing to do is pry her legs open or assist in other ways with the painful act of birthing a child. And, I am trained to deliver babies and it is pretty much impossible to do without sticking things near, around, or in the vagina (at least, to maintain today's medical standards of ensuring safe delivery)—sorry but there's no way around that fact. - Medicine is inherently uncomfortable. There's no way the doctor can do his job without making a patient uncomfortable. Anyone who has dealt with patients figures this out on their first day and realizes that ignoring a patient's cries is completely necessary for getting the job done. Now, hopefully the situation is such that you can explain to the patient what is going on to help them feel more comfortable, but if you're focused on a delicate procedure then sometimes you just need to do your job. In this case the doc's job is to get the child out safely. To put it bluntly, it would be medical malpractice for the doc to stop whatever he's doing every time the patient said it was uncomfortable. - The argument that rapists become OB/GYN doctors to prey on women is a bit ridiculous. I can't say it's never happened, but you need to realize the absolute level of dedication it takes to become a doctor. Most doctors don't know what field they'll enter until the last legs of medical school. You'd have to be a pretty damn dedicated rapist to spend 6-10 years of your life studying to become a doctor. Somehow I think they'd realize somewhere between their first and third organic chemistry classes that it would be easier to buy roofies. Similarly, I can almost guarantee no one is getting aroused in a medical scenario. Naked parts aren't sexy in those situations and in either case you're too busy thinking about the medical ramifications of what's going on around them to really acknowledge that you're staring at tits or vagina, or whatever. And a final point about that note: Doctors and medical professionals are terrified of malpractice suits, they will definitely not push the line and risk one. I know some male nurses that refuse to give ECGs to female patients under 30 because they don't want to risk the chance of anything they do being misinterpreted. I'm not saying that abuse doesn't happen. But realize that even rude and cold doctors are well-intentioned and are certainly going to help a patient to the best of their abilities. I don't doubt that there have been cases that could be constituted as rape, but it's not a widespread issue (if it were, you can be certain the medical community would investigate and make adjustments) and most instances are probably misinterpretations. Like I said, medicine is pretty confusing from the perspective of a patient and a lot of things that seem needlessly cruel are actually necessary standard procedure.
I agree with this. Humans in pain often cannot act rationally. But it isn't a requirement of giving birth to act rationally. Hell, acting irationally in the delivery room is culturally expected and the punchline of most Jeff Foxworthy jokes. Even if the decision is irrational, even if it harms the mother, even if it harms the baby--withdrawl of consent needs to be made available at all stages of the delivery process. It is the most effective check against the inherent power imbalance between doctor and patient. Nothing supercedes consent, except perhaps a court order or the person designated by the patient to give consent in emergency situation. If that person is his/her doctor, then that's great. But this often isn't the case in the delivery room, where parents/husband/wife clearly take that role. And no one--quite literally, no one--is suggesting that delivering a baby should be done without manipulating the vagina. You probably didn't mean that statement to be patronizing, but it was. Ignoring cries is one thing, and ignoring screams of "I DO NOT CONSENT! STOP! I DO NOT CONSENT!" is quite another. After a patient has revoked consent, you cannot touch them or treat them any further without veering into medical malpractice territory. And, depending on the circumstances that led the patient to revoke her consent, it could also be medical malfeasance, sexual assault, or rape. No one is making the claim that rapists become OB/GYN doctors in order to prey on women. No one. I mentioned one example earlier to demonstrate that rape takes many shapes, one of them being rape with a not-penis in a medical setting by a doctor-rapist. But again, no one is making that claim. The way that male nurses handle female patients under 30 is precisely how all gendered doctors should treat all gendered patients of all ages. This shouldn't change in the delivery room. And it's short-sighted to assume that medical professionals are so terrified of malpractive suits that they live in terror and toe the line. Like all professionals who perform poorly, most doctors who push the line think that they'll never get caught. I think it's awfully overreaching to say that all doctors are well-intentioned, as well as assuming that the medical profession isn't inherently set up to protect the system of marginalizing birthing women. EDIT: Holy spacing, Batman!
Look, I'll admit that I stooped to ad hominem attacks because you pissed me off earlier. I apologize. What I wrote needed to be said, but my language and tone weren't neccessary. So, that being said, please don't take this as a personal attack on you. I'm sincerely restraining myself here. This anecdote served what purpose? Women aren't traumatized because they accepted a quick answer instead of pushing for a long-winded explanation. I'm glad that you decided to go for the longer version, because I truly feel that more information about your health is almost always beneficial. But this isn't even the issue at hand. I'm confused as to why this was included. I did not describe rape and then proceed to compare it to a normal, consensual medical procedure. I did not. I regret that, somehow, I failed to make myself clear to you (and possibly others as well). But let me clarify now--Rape is NOT a consensual medical procedure. A pap smear that I scheduled, consented to, and discussed with my doctor is not a graphic alley rape. I don't think I can make this any more obvious. But rape isn't neccessarily penis-in-vagina. It isn't neccessarily in an abandoned alley. It isn't with STD-riddled pedophiles neccessarily, although rape can have all of these elements. The point I was laboring to make was that rape can happen with medical equipment, in a medical setting, perpetrated by a medical professional...and it's still rape. No. Sewing a Rolex to a dude's nuts is definitely malpractice, but telling someone that their anus makes his boner smile is sexual harassment. Period. It may also be malpractice, but it is firstly sexual harassment. And if he gets ya in the delivery room/hospital elevator/x-ray room/waiting area, it is still all definitely rape. And it could be charged as such, depending on which state you live in. Coming forward as a birth rape victim isn't belittling an issue. Same goes for date rape victims, spousal rape victims, gang rape victims, and prison rape victims. It's all rape, just wearing different clothes. And I think it's incredibly harmful to assume that "attention seekers want in on the payout." Here are the options for a woman who has experienced a traumatic sexual assault in the delivery room: 1. Malpractice suit. You get a payout, and get blamed for the rising costs of healthcare/called a money-chaser. 2. Birth rape allegation. Possibly a payout, more than likely a criminal suit (again, depending on your area). Get blamed for the rising costs of healthcare/called an attention seeker. 3. Remain silent. Suffer. Please don't demonize women seeking justice for the trauma they experienced. It's unfair, inaccurate, and quite frankly it contributes to rape culture.
Wow. Seriously you need to back away from this issue and get more perspective, because now you're crossing into the retard zone. You're suggesting a doctor let a patient or a child die any time an IRRATIONAL person says to? You're letting an IRRATIONAL person decide the fate of not only their own life, but a child's life? [deleted this last part] I guess we're at a fundamental disagreement here then. I think my life and possibly my child's life is more valuable than my consent. Is that what the argument comes down to?
This is the fucking stupidest thing I have ever heard of. I'm not a doctor or an expert on birthing so who the fuck am I to say what they should or should not be doing. What gives women the right to cry foul and Monday morning quarterback decisions that are made in the best interest in the mother and the child's well being? I certainly wouldn't want someone to come in and tell me how to do my job just because they have used a phone and a computer before. What is the saying? Something like.....owning a car doesn't make you a mechanic any more than going to church makes you a Christian? Well.....having a vagina and unprotected sex doesn't make me qualified to know what it takes medically to facilitate a safe birth. Plus, let's take into account that women are fucking drama queens and they are all hopped up on hormones and pain and/or pain meds. Really? Is that the best case scenario to be the judge of "misconduct"? Lastly......you have all sorts of shit leaking and shooting out of your lady hole (and some people literally shit or piss themselves) so PLEASE tell me what ANYONE would find attractive or arousing about a situation like that? Women talk about way more shit than we should with way more detail than is ever necessary and I have NEVER heard anyone even bring this up....and trust me, I have talked to at least 500 women that I know about childbirth. This being said.....yes, I have given birth and the first thing you figure out is to check your modesty and dignity at the door. God I fucking hate women.
Technically speaking yes it is. Thats why people are filing lawsuits, and not serving arrest warrants.
I'm saying that bodily autonomy is of the utmost importance for women in the delivery room. I don't think this is too much to ask--in fact, I think this is a bare minimum. We can have an awesome debate if you want to about whose interests rank higher to the attending OB/GYN--the baby, or the mother. But unless it's stated in some medical manual that I haven't read yet, I believe that the Dr. represents both. The Dr. also represents a third person's interests--him/herself. If a patient revokes consent and refuses to accept the level of care that the doctor is attempting to provide, perhaps legal intervention or an appeal to the emergency decision maker (husband, wife) may be neccessary. Revoking consent may cost the mother the life of her child, or herself--but unfortunately, that's the risk you take when you refuse medical treatment. Thankfully, most people attempting to revoke consent mid-labor aren't doing so in life-or-death situations. Life-or-death situations in the delivery room aren't as frequent as most people are led to believe. EDIT: To answer Rabbit B.--I can't make that decision. Right now, I say that my consent is of the utmost importance...taking precedence over my life, even. But were I pushing a 10 lb. baby out of my cooter and in massive pain...I might place more value on becoming pain-free as soon as possible. Everyone has different priorities. But respecting the bodily autonomy of everyone who walks through the E.R. cannot do harm, only good.
Can't we all agree that: 1. If a doctor is doing things that aren't necessary--inserting, rubbing, pulling, licking, humping--during the birthing process, that's very wrong and should be taken very seriously. 2. Delivering a baby is complicated and tricky, and the doctor can't just stand there two feet away with a catcher's mitt. Having said that, before the delivery, as others have said, the mother and the doctor should have an in depth (heh) discussion about what will and what may happen. "If X happens, I'm going to have to get a hand in there immediately - are you ok with that?" "If Y happens, I may have to start masturbating - we cool?" The debate on whether or not all these anonymous women are telling the truth about being violated, and to what degree, is pointless. Didn't we have a thread a while ago about a super hot bank teller who got fired for being super hot? And didn't we argue for pages and pages about whether she was a whiney attention whore or a legitimate victim? Even though we all agreed that being fired for looking too attractive in work-appropriate clothes is bullshit? And do we have to have "rape" in the title? Rape is not funny.
Here is the breakdown: - You believe that bodily autonomy is of the utmost importance in the delivery room. - I believe that a woman's and child's safety is of the utmost importance. You're saying irrational consent (as opposed to informed consent, defined as "the knowledge of the possible consequences, typically that which is given by a patient to a doctor for treatment with full knowledge of the possible risks and benefits") is more important than the safety of the mother and child. PLEASE correct me if I'm wrong here. If you're not willing to sacrifice your consent in order to protect your child, then you probably shouldn't have one. ---- I'd like to note here, that I believe that there might be asshole doctors that deserve to have malpractice suites filed against them. However, for the most part I believe that doctor's ignoring the consent for the good of the woman and child is appropriate.
I don't know what it feels like to get kicked in the balls.....because I don't have them. So you know what? I don't try and say what I would do if I was kicked in the balls or how it might make me feel because once again....I don't HAVE them. That being said...don't you think that women that have never given birth should probably shut the fuck up and stop trying to speak for my entire gender?
You are kind of wrong, but it's okay. I don't really care what kind of consent you give, although I would ideally like everyone to have loads of information in order to fully understand the depth of their consent. I'm saying withdrawl of previously willful consent (the reasons behind it being irrelevant, although you could label some reasons more irrational than others) is of equal importance to the safety of mother and child. And that the doctor doesn't get to be the person to tip the scales in favor of one decision or another...the emergency caregiver (husband/wife/doula/patient advocate) should be the one to make that call. EDIT: Held a two hour old baby today--thought it was cute, but still don't want one. No worries.
First of all, as to the rapists becoming doctors: if you didn't actually make the claim that rapists were becoming doctors, what were you on about? As far as I can tell, you proved in a theoretical sense that rape can occur in a delivery room. And, theoretically, I'll agree with you on that. But now you're saying that this doesn't happen. I don't get it. Either we're dealing with sadists who know and enjoy what they're doing, or we're dealing with otherwise well-meaning people who (at least somewhat unknowingly) cross boundaries they shouldn't. As to the second part; the idea that medicine should be segregated into women caring for women and men caring for men is nonsense. Sheer and utter nonsense. I also wanted to ask you - do you know under what circumstances a physician (or, well, any medical practitioner, really) can be charged with sexual assault? I'm assuming you don't. Any existence of a sexual and professional relationshp is grounds for prosecution for sexual assault. This is how seriously it's taken. A practitioner taking part in the care of a spouse, boyfriend, girlfriend, girl he/she banged after three dates and one night stands - they're all sexual assault. Physician tells a patient he needs to give her a pelvic exam to determine if she has asthma - sexual assault. And every single case is published as a matter of public record - full and identifying information of the offender, explicit details of what happened, as well as punitive measures taken. Let me repeat: medical professionals (and even chiropractors) have been criminally charged with sexual assault for treating their spouses, even when no touching of icky parts was involved, even when there was nothing wrong with the procedures performed or advice given. And here you're telling us that rape - rape - is committed on a regular basis in delivery rooms and not even the fellow medical professionals in the room, reading the charts or case summaries of what has occured have ever clued that maybe what's been happening isn't kosher? Has there never been a victim (or family member, or patient advocate, member of the care team, anyone in the vicinity of said victim) who has the medical or legal knowledge to know what happened was wrong and knows the proper channels to have the perpetrator disciplined for their actions? I think at least part of this has to do with the fact that, to trained professionals, body parts are body parts. The person giving birth probably doesn't share this opinion. Someone who's gone through nursing/medical school, internships and residencies has seen a whole lot of body parts, and anatomy as a discipline doesn't distinguish between your penis and your heart: all of them are nicely sliced up, preserved in formaldehyde and dispassionately displayed in anatomy museums, taught in classes, so forth. When a surgeon is cutting away at a patient's insides and has to do something far more invasive than originally planned because of a complication, nobody blinks an eye (lest we devolve into "I didn't consent for you to go below my diaphragm" rape). When the patient is conscious and the complications result in penetration of otherwise special orifices, and the most natural, beautiful, spiritual and perfect act a human being can perform (sarcasm mine) turns into something you'd normally only do after having been bought a few drinks, well, shit starts to seem a whole lot different.
Unfounded generalizations about women being "fucking drama queens" that are "all hopped up on hormones and pain" who "talk about way more shit than we should with way more detail than is ever necessary" is crossing the line from passionate debate to plain old invective and misogyny - even if you happen to be a woman. Everybody is on notice about this shit. Keep it up and there will be consequences.
You do realize that prior to the actual birthing process you do go to prenatal visits? I would hope that you could pick up on the fact that you and the OB/GYN you were seeing are compatible during those 9 months leading up to the birth. Consent should be obtained before EVERY medical procedure unless it is an emergency and the patient is unable to verbalize or sign for themselves. You should also look up things like implied consent in an emergent medical situation. I personally had to consent a patient today who had altered mental status with an H&H below the threshold for 2 units of blood. Normally this requires an explanation and his signature but due to the extenuating circumstances I filled out the paperwork myself and the units were transfused. As for your claim of medical students violating a patient by examining her 25+ times in a hospital setting are ludicrous. I've been on OB/GYN rotations in the past and patients were free at any time to choose not to see any medical students. Several times I was told not to enter a room due to the fact the patient did not want to be examined by a medical student. I disagree with this practice personally because most of the time these patients are self pay at a teaching hospital, meaning the hospital is footing the bill, and as such this should allow medical residents/students to learn from these patients as a trade off if they are the primary under the attending on the case.
Wow. I've missed out on some fun over the course of the day. Before I comment on 'birth rape,' lemme make a quick point about the birth process itself in North America. How labour is handled here is, to me, exceptionally bad. Misconceptions by Naomi Wolff (who is 85% militant feminist shithead, 15% correct) outlined some of the faults. A documentary produced by, of all people, Ricki Lake called The Business of Being Born outlined some more. These are just two easily found references that are produced to have a broad appeal and are therefore easy for anyone to read/watch. In a nutshell, they outline how over the past sixty years the medical community has ruined the birthing process. It is treated as a major medical event requiring much supervision and intervention. The fact is that countries where midwifes, dulas, home births and less intervention are stressed see higher infant/maternal survival rates and cheaper birthing costs. The reason - especially in America - why there is so much medical intervention (IV, monitors, fixed positions, epidurals, C-sections, etc) is because it prevents lawsuits. Some hospitals see over 50% of their births done via C-section. In an environment where birth is not seen as a medical crisis, where the women are fully supported medically and emotionally, and birth is allowed to happen naturally with trained professionals the C-section rate can be as low as 5%. If anyone's interested I'll post some links. Now, my thoughts on 'birth rape.' I think it's a symptom of what I just described above. Women are told that they are not important to the birthing process...it's something that happens to them. Medical practitioners have evolved to a level where they see childbirth as another medical event, like a heart bypass or setting a broken bone. Communication breaks down, and in most cases trained birthing professionals are lost - the women are left with doctors. I think the violation they feel as a result of this lack of trust is what is being described. What alarms me though is the percentage of people on this thread who are essentially saying STFU and quit complaining, you stupid feminist bitches...birth is supposed to hurt! Yes, it is supposed to hurt. It is not supposed to rob you of control of yourself, or invite people in who do NOT specialize in birthing to create a crisis and come up with a host of medical interventions that are not required. Sometimes crisis happen and immediate action is required; in my opinion, sadly, it is not a medical crisis but standard operating procedure just going through the motions.
You know, this was just the thread I wanted to read with my best friends wife and great friend being induced into labor (is that how you write it?) tomorrow.
Switched from utmost importance to equal now? Okay, still doesn't change my point. Now the withdrawl of previously willful consent (the reasons behind it being irrelevant, although you could label some reasons more irrational than others. I was arguing about only irrationally, but you can change it I guess) is of equal importance to the safety of mother and child. Well again, my point doesn't change at all. I disagree. I believe the safety of the mother and child is the most important and that the doctor should ignore the patient for their own safety. Again, if you're not going to waive your consent in order to protect your child, then you shouldn't have one.