Baby on Board

Atul Gawande discusses the evolution of childbirth within his article, “How Childbirth went Industrial.” Throughout Mr. Gawande’s description of the technological advancements of birth, he includes a detailed description of Elizabeth Rourke’s pregnancy and the birth of her infant. This provides the reader with a complex pregnancy that ended successfully. Other tools that were also used were electronic fetal monitoring (EFM), IV fluids, an epidural, and Pitocin to speed up labor. He explains that while these tools may be overused, they have made pregnancy and delivery safer for the mother as well as the child. Unlike other medical fields, new ideas and technology were often tried first hand with pregnancy instead of being tested prior. Mr. Gawande explains that pregnancy has become industrial in the sense that similar tools are often used for routine as well as high-risk pregnancies. The author ended his article with the birth of Dr. Rourke’s child. He explains that the baby was stuck sideways and a cesarean section was necessary in order to ensure the safety of the child. Mr. Gawande seems to suggest that cesarean sections are becoming more popular and are often the preferred method of delivery for many physicians. Physicians have reported being encouraged by their malpractice carriers as well as their patients to perform cesareans when it not clinically necessary. Whether or not natural childbirth will become obsolete remains to be seen.

Henci Goer bashes Atul Gawande’s article within her work, “How Childbirth Went Industrial: A Deconstruction.” Ms. Goer provides substantial evidence which makes the reader question the benefits of technological advancements for routine pregnancies. She explains that cesarean sections have too often become routine practice by numerous physicians. Mrs. Goer ridicules Atul Gawande for accepting cesarean sections as the answer. She explains that cesarean sections increase the death rate of the mother as well as the baby during pregnancy. The author also provides statistical analysis to substantiate her belief that technological advances, such as continuous electronic fetal monitoring and IV drips, are often used for no reason at all. She does not argue against cesarean sections, but explains that they should be limited instead of becoming common practice. She explains that Dr. Rourke most probably did need a cesarean section but this is not the case for multiple women who receive them on a daily basis.

I felt that Atul Gawande and Henci Goer both made excellent points throughout their respective articles. There have been significant technological advancements but as with most fields of medicine, they are often misused as well as overused. With limited knowledge of the field, I found Mr. Gawande’s article to be beneficial and informative. After reading Mrs. Goer’s article, one begins to question the information presented by Atul Gawande. My opinion falls somewhere between the two authors. I support the use of technology, such as IV drips and/or electronic fetal monitoring, recognizing that they pose little risk to the patient and offer great benefit in a crisis. On the other hand, I believe that cesarean sections are often overused. One must remember that cesarean sections are major abdominal surgery. Cesarean sections are of great benefit when a mother and/or baby are a risk. A physician should not perform a cesarean section because of convenience to his/her schedule or preference of a malpractice carrier. Instead, it should be based on the safety of the mother and the child. It is important to remember that childbirth is a natural occurrence. If a mother chooses not to have medical intervention that is her choice, as long no medical risk is evident. After reading both of these articles, it is evident that there are pros and cons with technological advancements. The question becomes how and when to use this technology in order to ensure healthy mothers and healthy babies.