• J Eval Clin Pract · Oct 2022

    A stigmatizing dilemma in the labour room: Irrationality or selfishness?

    • Virginia Ballesteros.
    • Faculty of Philosophy, Complutense University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain.
    • J Eval Clin Pract. 2022 Oct 1; 28 (5): 875882875-882.

    AbstractNowadays, a considerable number of women have a negative or outright traumatic birth experience. Literature shows that being involved in decision-making and exercising autonomy are important factors in having a positive birth experience. In this article, I explore the hypothesis that some views characteristic of the biomedical model of childbirth may hinder women's involvement in decision-making, leading them to what I have dubbed as a 'stigmatizing dilemma'; that is, to be perceived and treated as either irrational or selfish when trying to exercise their autonomy in the labour room. I suggest that such a stigmatizing dilemma arises when the following views are uncritically and unqualifiedly endorsed: (1) childbirth is a process fraught with risk, particularly to babies; (2) labouring women's reports are unreliable and their subjective perspective does not constitute a valuable source of information; (3) medical knowledge and procedures are the safest means to give birth. In a scenario where (1)-(3) are strongly endorsed, if birthing women act according to instrumental rationality and want the best for their babies, they will be expected to just leave decisions to medical experts. Thus, not following expert directions might lead women to fall under the stigma of either irrationality or selfishness: they could be perceived and treated as either irrational, since they may not seem to seek the best means to accomplish their goal; or selfish, since they may seem to pursue goals other than the baby's health. I examine these stigmas in relation to two ideals: that of disembodied rationality and that of selfless motherhood. I also explore different ways in which the views and prejudices underlying this stigmatizing dilemma could be challenged.© 2022 The Authors. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

      Pubmed     Free full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…

What will the 'Medical Journal of You' look like?

Start your free 21 day trial now.

We guarantee your privacy. Your email address will not be shared.