Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Women were never meant to give birth on their backs

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 50 posts

Re: Women were never meant to give birth on their backs

#11

Post by setopt »

conception wrote: post #8
ViktorRay wrote: post #4

I wonder what it would take to get hospitals to change how women give birth based on this scientific evidence.

Hospitals are starting to bring midwives and doulas back. Of course, educating women and families about their options and pushing back on inducing labor and c sections would help as well.

If the water actually broke, inducing labor can be important to reduce the risk of infection though, since bacteria can easily get into the amniotic fluid. If the water didn’t break yet, then at least where I live they don’t induce unless you go so much over the expected birth date that there is a high risk you’ll need C-section if you wait more (in Northern Europe they generally don’t offer C-sections unless medically required).

Re: Women were never meant to give birth on their backs

#13

Post by stavros »

This article mixes the science with unnecessarily gendered language. It turns "a lying down position helps the doctor" to "men decided women should be on their backs" and "one pervert king liked watching women give birth, therefore somehow that's why".

Can't we just focus on the scientific advantages and not try to shoehorn sexism into everything?

Re: Women were never meant to give birth on their backs

#14

Post by torlok »

stavros wrote: post #13

This article mixes the science with unnecessarily gendered language. It turns "a lying down position helps the doctor" to "men decided women should be on their backs" and "one pervert king liked watching women give birth, therefore somehow that's why". Can't we just focus on the scientific advantages and not try to shoehorn sexism into everything?

I think it's useful to drive the point home that there is no good reason to give birth lying down. Otherwise you make it sound like "scientists say you should try this", and not "this was a stupid idea in the first place".

Re: Women were never meant to give birth on their backs

#15

Post by impossiblefork »

stavros wrote: post #13

This article mixes the science with unnecessarily gendered language. It turns "a lying down position helps the doctor" to "men decided women should be on their backs" and "one pervert king liked watching women give birth, therefore somehow that's why". Can't we just focus on the scientific advantages and not try to shoehorn sexism into everything?

Yes, but isn't the "one pervert king liked watching women give birth, therefore somehow that's why" actually correct, so that we should say something like "one pervert king liked watching women give birth and that's why people have done it this very, very silly way"?

Re: Women were never meant to give birth on their backs

#16

Post by stavros »

impossiblefork wrote: post #15
stavros wrote: post #13

This article mixes the science with unnecessarily gendered language. It turns "a lying down position helps the doctor" to "men decided women should be on their backs" and "one pervert king liked watching women give birth, therefore somehow that's why". Can't we just focus on the scientific advantages and not try to shoehorn sexism into everything?

Yes, but isn't the "one pervert king liked watching women give birth, therefore somehow that's why" actually correct, so that we should say something like "one pervert king liked watching women give birth and that's why people have done it this very, very silly way"?

The article explicitly says that we don't know how much he influenced anything, so the mention just seems to be thrown in for the controversy:

> "The influence of the king's policy is unknown, although the behaviour of royalty must have affected the populace to some degree,"

Given that we aren't sure that the king affected anything, mentioning this feels more like editorializing than evidence.

Re: Women were never meant to give birth on their backs

#17

Post by stavros »

torlok wrote: post #14
stavros wrote: post #13

This article mixes the science with unnecessarily gendered language. It turns "a lying down position helps the doctor" to "men decided women should be on their backs" and "one pervert king liked watching women give birth, therefore somehow that's why". Can't we just focus on the scientific advantages and not try to shoehorn sexism into everything?

I think it's useful to drive the point home that there is no good reason to give birth lying down. Otherwise you make it sound like "scientists say you should try this", and not "this was a stupid idea in the first place".

My issue with the article in general is that it undermines its own persuasiveness. It doesn't seem to say "giving birth sitting is better", or even "doctors wanted to have better visibility", but tries to cast it as a story of deliberate male oppression.

It's just unnecessarily divisive to try to turn this into a case of sexism, and I feel it takes away from the scientific angle of the article. Someone might very well dismiss the valid scientific findings as more about gender politics than science. It just doesn't seem to me like there's a need for the gendered slant.

Re: Women were never meant to give birth on their backs

#18

Post by puelocesar »

stavros wrote: post #13

This article mixes the science with unnecessarily gendered language. It turns "a lying down position helps the doctor" to "men decided women should be on their backs" and "one pervert king liked watching women give birth, therefore somehow that's why". Can't we just focus on the scientific advantages and not try to shoehorn sexism into everything?

I think you are being a bit hysterical and trying to find an issue where there’s none.

The article is just trying to find an historical explanation on why something so inefficient became norm in modern civilization, there’s no sexism here…

Re: Women were never meant to give birth on their backs

#20

Post by Andrex »

setopt wrote: post #11
conception wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hospitals are starting to bring midwives and doulas back. Of course, educating women and families about their options and pushing back on inducing labor and c sections would help as well.

If the water actually broke, inducing labor can be important to reduce the risk of infection though, since bacteria can easily get into the amniotic fluid. If the water didn’t break yet, then at least where I live they don’t induce unless you go so much over the expected birth date that there is a high risk you’ll need C-section if you wait more (in Northern Europe they generally don’t offer C-sections unless medical…

Yes. Parent comment lacks context for why induced labor and c-sections are supposedly bad.
Post reply on HN