Jenny,
This thing of normality in retrospect come from medical thinking for about
80 years now. First, women's body was studied with the masculine body as the
norm. From the start, it was not " normal". In that conception of the norm
(a kind of ideal...) you should always ask the question: normal for who?
Compare to what?
Birth is normal in retrospect like a trip is, like most of the things human
beings are doing, like life is. Normality of birth is not a posteriori, it
is A PRIORI. It is a biological norm, it is an evolutionary norm. Human body
did not change for the last 100,000 years! Same physiology, same brain, same
pelvis, same uterus, same hormones. Women's bodies are made to carry,
nourrish, protect and give birth to babies. This is the miracle. What we
have now is the best evolution for the human species! Most of the time human
being where not eating enough ( they still do), there was no antibiotics,
etc . Normality should be somewere because we are now 6 billions! This is
the powerfull normativity of the living human body. The problem is not that
there are problems sometimes ( and they are part of normal). It is that we
don't acknowledge that most of the time, it works! It is NOT chance! It is
not survival. We are talking about the process that assure the reproduction
of the human species here.
The study of all genetics and congenital abnormalities brings fears but at
the same time it also reveal the miraculous generality of perfection in
human beings.
At first, for medicine, woman's body was not normal, than it was potentially
pathologic, and now it constitute a risk for the foetus.... so if you don't
control the process ( I mean the woman) carefully, something bad can always
happen. So prenatal care is now expecting trouble... All that "surveillance"
comes from fear, and distrust about women and babies. Women shouldn't have
to prove that they are "adequate", being good girls, following advices,
doing choices...and shut up.
Céline, from Québec
( sorry for my english, I am french speaking....)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Marianne Mead" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 6:49 AM
Subject: Re: Help!
> Jenny,
>
> I would argue that the principle of "innocent until proved guilty" should
> apply in the circumstances. You cannot prove that a woman does not have
an
> abnormality, in the same way that the accused does not have to prove their
> innocence. I would suggest an approach whereby all women are considered
> normal, irrespective of how you define normality, until a defined
condition
> which could negatively affect either mother or baby is demonstrated.
>
> Pregnancy and labour as such cannot be identified as defined conditions
> that could negatively affect either mother or baby, although of course you
> have to be pregnant to suffer any pregnancy complications!!! But then you
> have to be alive to die!
>
> I suggest that you might look at it from the point of view that any woman
> who would be suitable for home birth is by definition suitable for the
> Family Birth Rooms.
>
> Although I would not like to appear cynical and Christmas is a long way
> away, you might wish to collect money to get them a copy of Marjorie Tew's
> book on Safer Childbirth?
>
> Just a thought! Happy fund raising :-)
>
> Marianne
>
>
> Dr Marianne Mead
> Department of Nursing and Midwifery
> University of Hertfordshire
> College Lane
> Hatfield AL10 9AB
>
> Tel 01707 285286
> Fax 01707 285299
|