In be delivered through C-section, it would be

            In Robbie
Davis-Floyd’s article on “The technocratic model of birth,” Davis-Floyd goes
into detail of the dependence on technology that individuals have in today’s
society. There are some pretty grueling images that she brings up, including
individuals’ own accounts of feeling dehumanized when hooked up to so many
monitors or feeling as though they are a mere spectator in the delivery process
because so much emphasis is placed on the machines rather than the new mother
herself. In addition, with the creation of new medications and new processes
for aiding in delivery of a child, many women feel as though they have been
robbed of the happiness and uniquely positive experiences associated with
giving birth. While there are women who are fine with the medical intervention
used today in many delivery settings, it becomes obvious that Davis-Floyd’s
position is on the side of those who approach the medicalization and
dehumanization of childbirth in disdain. Similarly, in Rob Knight’s TED Talk,
he outlines the importance of natural childbirth on a more biological level,
rather than psychological like Davis-Floyd’s article. Because in natural
delivery, the newborn passes through the birth canal, it is coated in more
vaginal microbes than if the baby were to be delivered through a C-section. If
delivered through a C-section, then the newborn would be exposed to and coated
in more skin microbes. What has been found through research is that those
children born naturally are less likely to experience certain conditions such
as asthma or obesity. As a result, Knight says that even if a baby must be
delivered through C-section, it would be very beneficial to coat them in the
defensive vaginal microbes because of their positive benefits. I believe that
the United States has overmedicalized the practice of giving birth, turning a
naturally very intimate process into a very dehumanized, technological process.

I feel as though this relates very strongly with the high rates of maternal
death rates during childbirth especially in the United States, because of the high
level of technology used to aid in childbirth, as compared to other nations. In
addition, this is also related to maternal morale, as Galvez shows in her
studies. In her studies, Galvez shows the high levels of happiness following
the natural childbirth in Mexico, with pains relieved with herbs and naturally.

On the other hand, in the United States, Galvez discusses with her subjects the
drab environments and hardships they had when delivering their children. While
I do agree that thee has been an increase in the medicalization of childbirth
that has surpassed a point of productivity, I also feel as though some of the
technology we have today for these practices is beneficial in the case of
emergencies, or purely for the availability of choice. My question, therefore,

In some cases, medical technology is required in order to
save the lives of the mother and the child (an emergency). In doing so, sometimes
doctors will have to go against what the mothers initially wanted to do, after
taking their consent and explaining the emergency. However, where can the line
be drawn between emergency and not an emergency?