Insights from Born in the USA --part3

Insights from Born in the USA --part2

Insights from Born in the USA --part2

Insights from Born in the USA --part1

Born in the USA by Dr. Marsden Wagner is organized in such a way that is reminiscent of Fast Food Nation. Now maybe I’m just saying that because the color scheme, size and font are the same, but each of the nine chapters focuses on an aspect that connects to the major theme that pregnancy is designed for the ease of the doctor and not for the care of the child and mother. About every time Dr. Wagner makes a claim or refutes one he has a superscript to back up his claim that when done with the chapter one could check the source of evidence for if one was so inclined.

The question Dr. Wagner tries to answer is: how is the maternity system in the USA broken and how are we to fix it? Dr. Wagner clearly states his views on the maternity system and what safer alternatives are available. I don’t think “fixing” is the best word however, I think Americans need an entirely new outlook on how birth is dealt with, and our maternity system shouldn’t be fixed it should be burned and from the ashes of sonographs and lithotomies rises a new system dominated by midwives and doulas.

The major insight Dr. Wagner establishes in Born in the USA is that there has been a curtain pulled, it separates the large population of the US from the procedures performed by obstetricians. It separates the truth from the reason, the logic from science, the nature from life and most importantly the options from the mother. This is not any individuals fault but a fault on the development into what is now the USA’s maternity system. The book is a clear example to me the dangers of hierarchy and absolute power. A reminder that education is not always preventing ignorance but can actually breed an I’m the expert consciousness that will result in closed minded followers. And most profoundly it criticizes society as it accepts knowledge; that once a group of experts in a given field reach a consensus on anything that may pertain to that field, whether it be right or wrong, everyone else will follow blindly.

Both Dr. Wagner and I agree that the structure of power within maternity care must be reshaped as it encourages pregnant women to yield to their doctor’s will. The ease of performing certain pregnancy procedures such as cesarean sections should be restricted because of the health risks and contingent nature of the procedures. People should also be aware doctors make mistakes, and often don’t see that they made a mistake because the procedure they are following has not been criticized. People should know that pregnancy and pain aren’t synonymous. The most important thing that should be put under public eye is the options available to pregnant woman, the alternatives to having birth in a hospital and the probable sequence of events of their decision.

Dr. Wagner’s use of evidence is very strong. Much of the evidence is firsthand accounts as he is well experienced in the workings of medical practice because he is (or was at some point) a doctor. Because of his direct experience he shares rare insight and has irrefutable testimony to the maternal system. That which he can’t support by pure firsthand account he supports with statistics and historical context. He does not cite the evidence in text, but he does make superscripts so if one were to doubt a claim one could flip over and see where its source is.

comments

Luke Jensen (protege) said...

Hey John, I enjoyed reading this post and not just because I know Izzy and her family, although it was cool to see, at least partly, why and how Izzy came to exist. I think your best line would probably have to be, "Marriage without the birth is often looked at with suspicion while the other way around it is shameful" because i think it is concise,and a perceptive observation. I also feel like it is a good example of how your post as a whole talks about our cultural concepts of marriage,family, and gender roles and their implications, and possibly why they exist. You suggest the possibility of biology being an influence on, if not the reason for, some of the roles certain people play out in society, specifically gender roles. I wonder how much biology plays into how mothers and fathers interact with child birth or the raising of children. And I think a cross-cultural analysis of how mothers and fathers, or men and women in general,interact with child birth, marriage, and family would be interesting and insightful in terms of explaining if Tom and Jackie's experience is unique and culturally different from others or if there is at least some nugget of universality in their experiences with child birth and family life.

Emily (mentor) said...

Hi John!

This was a great small interview with Tom, and on a topic that's personal and can be hard to boil down in a 100 word wrap-up. I liked two aspects of this interview-analysis. 1) You delved into a topic that not many parents are so willing to express: how their lives are going to change after having a kid--for the worse. Or at least, that was his initial thinking. Clearly, that has changed. And 2) the social expectations of a married couple with or without children, and vice versa, a unmarried couple having a baby and the stigmas that follow along.

I suggest that you look over your work, as there were some grammatical errors. Also, you touched briefly on Jackie's pregnancy as a tumor. It's true! Fetutes are parasites, it would be funny to explore that idea in juxtaposition to the "pregancy is beautiful!" idea.

ElizabethM (Elizabeth Mallinson) said...

Hey John,

I think that the first topic you'd like to explore further is a really interesting one (what are the reasons for marriage and birth to be so interconnected in our society?). Another thing that I liked was that in your response paragraph, you talked about society and then compared society's standards back to Tom and Jackie.

One thing I'd suggest is proofreading your work. There were a few minor grammar mistakes that you would have noticed i you'd combed through your work. Another benefit from proofreading is that you could probably see room for expansion and, by doing so, add some more "beauty" to your work.

Good Job!

Lucas L (Lucas London) said...

John,

I enjoyed that your post was short and straight to the point. It's interesting that Tom views marriage and pregnancy as a 'rite of passage', perhaps it truly is the most basic of such displays of passage, because the act of procreation is so universal amongst organisms. Your comparison of a fetus to a tumor was slightly funny, in a dark sort of way, but fetuses tend not to kill their mothers... (most of the time). Thanks for the good read.

-Lucas

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

JohnMT1a said...

Lucas,
like always i enjoyed reading your post, your thoughts are always concise and you can so clearly spill them out. the way you kept the interviewees anonymous with letters annoyed me, i would have much preferred names even if they were made up, i soon realized i could just do that in my head though. back to the good stuff, your variety was also something i enjoyed aswell and i was impressed you were able to find people wit such stories, perhaps this shows how much i previously had not known and assumed i had. i also like the topic you chose to investigate, its a bit of a touchy subject but those are always the best.

great post,
john tabor

Elizabeth!
Your interviews were interesting and you presented each one with something of a narrative arc, different from mine which is something i think i could work on. the details were the most nice spice, like how the doctor made threats and the nurse was incompetant. the one that struck me the most was the first interviewee only got offered a seat twice on the train in those 9 months, maybe my social obligations are more different than i thought than of others. im curious to know what neighborhood she would get off and on. another thing i also liked was how i could also very easily follow your thought process which almost made me feel im not alone at night looking at a computer reading someones blog. thanks for the stories,

John 

Pregnancy & Birth Stories

                When interviewing people for birth stories I drove the discussion more to the reasons for birth, the sequence of events preceding and following birth and other such inquiries on the unit I had.

                My friend Izzy was born of Tom and Jackie, Tom whom I interviewed had Izzy in his thirties married Jackie after she was pregnant with his daughter. He decided to do this sequence because Tom and Jackie wanted for sure to have a child and with their age didn’t want to wait to get married; time was of the essence. The significance of the marriage was that Tom believed it was a “public proclamation” and a “right of passage”.  Why Tom made the decision to have children was that he himself had a great experience as a child and that he wanted to give birth in order to share that experience he had and witness it all over again.

This new transition of becoming a married father meant “goodbye usual life”, “no more going to clubs, six-packs every night or any new girlfriends”. When the decision was made to make this family his life opened up.  He assumed that he would always have five children as he himself was one of five children. While Jackie was pregnant and going through this physical experience of having an organism grow inside her he was by her side helping her when he could “you know it’s your child and you have a protective instinct”.

                Often in our society child birth and marriage go hand in hand, this idea of having an official bond with someone and then from that “holy matrimony” creating a family. Marriage without the birth is often looked at with suspicion while the other way around it is shameful. When exploring one topic it is hard to avoid the other as they stand under the umbrella of family. Tom’s last comment showed the distinction of male and female roles with have some origin in the biological roles. That the Tom must be the caretaker or the nurse for Jackie as she is the one with a tumor, and she is going through a physical experience and thus carrying the heavier burden because of biological reasons. Tom then once to be active in the process so does what he can while the mother and fetus share a special connection.

What are the reasons for marriage and birth to be so interconnected in our society?

Can certain roles not be changes because of biological reasons?

Other Peoples' Perspectives 1

            When exploring the dominant social concepts and understandings of birth in my generation I interviewed several people from a variety of sexes, ethnicities, and economic backgrounds to see if there are understandings of birth in my generation that I was unaware of because of my upbringing. Unfortunately my results came back the same for everyone, as if each individual was not an “individual” but rather a robot programmed to say their “opinions” that were identical to every other robot. When I asked if the person planned on having kids in the future 100% of the nine people who responded confirmed they would have kids “it seems to be rare for people to not intend on having kids at all” –Natalie Cuomo. To connect to the previous unit this can confirm the Epicurus theory of how everyone’s greatest fear in life is their own death, that each person wants to have kids because though each individual doesn’t have the power to make a huge difference in the world they can at least produce offspring. And although one will pass on and die, they have at least deeply affected another human being, producing a synthetic conception of immortality because of the life they have produced and shaped.

            As I asked “what are some stigmas associated with pregnancy?” everyone responded that teenage pregnancy shows immaturity and can be connected with those who come from low income areas (except for Audrey Banks who believed “[there are] no stigmas, except you get mistaken for fat”). “Although I'm not sure whether you would consider this a stigma, but society seems to view being a mother and having a job as two mutually exclusive things, and combining the two negatively affects how others view women in the workplace” –Lauren Crawford, this was probably the most thought provoking response as it considered patriarchy in the workplace that is rooted at biological roles. And that why is a pregnant woman, someone who may be revered as a hero bringing fresh joyous life into the world forced to balance between duties of supporting a child and supporting herself and perhaps others financially when for many others in crippling positions who are not so highly revered are given financial benefits from the government? It seems as though one dominant social value contradicts another.  

            When I asked “what is the accepted range of how many children one should have in mainstream society? What numbers are not?” I was under no fallacious daze that I’d get a variety of answers, that I’d get the answer of 2-3 because that is the number I see every day, at school on television etc. always a family of usually 4-5 of the 2 parents and the few children. And I was absolutely correct, though one friend of mine who chose to remain anonymous said “More than 4 kids is like woaaahh that's a hell of a lot of kids. Only kids kind of wig me out if parents aren't divorced, usually, too much attention on one child I think breeds bratty-ness in the kid” which is an interesting view that if you have one child and two parents they will show that one child too much attention. That perhaps having siblings teaches a child to cooperate and share even when it seems impossible, or being raised by a single parent or divorced parents the child might grow some maturity through a somewhat difficult process. However though “bratty-ness” may be a byproduct of being an only child, being raised by a single parent may also have certain psychological effects on the child.

These responses I just found interesting as well:

If you were to have a child and the decision was put souly on you, would you want the birth in a hospital or at home?

“If someone has it at home they are kicking off that whole parenting thing badly” –Evan Pundyke

“Hospital, I am so scared” –Audrey Banks

“hospital- safer, cleaner, with professionals” –Sam Williams

“Hospital, duh” –anonymous

What is the accepted range of how many children one should have in mainstream society? What numbers are not?

“I think 1-5 is pretty normal I think 6 is odd and more is also odd. Any fraction is also a bad sign like 1/2 a kid or 4/5ths a kid” –Evan Pundyke

“Normal range is 1-4 I think. The largest number of children on record is 66- that is not accepted” –Audrey Banks

“It varies from where you live/where you're from/ socioeconomic background, but I would say five and up starts to get weird. How would you take care of that many babies?” –James Nash

Some Initial Thoughts On Birth

to be continued....

comments

chris,

I think you were able to link very well how what we learned in the past unit directly connects to what we learned in this unit. you also were able to bring it together in a sortof overarching theme which i liked. what id like to see you improve on a bit is to see if you can carry this into something deeper, that maybe we havent discussed yet in class. something much easier said than done of coarse but i think you can do it, in this one for instance it seemed like you were about to get to something really big but it didnt go the distance.

hope this helped
john
-------------------------------------------------

John,
I think you talk about a few different things here that refer to some of the topics we covered in class and probably one of the biggest. I like how at the end of your post you start talking a bit about specifics in contrast to the beginning when you kind of show what you learned over the course of the unit. I think the best line you had in your post is when you say "Many of us think with the right medical care one will overcome their illness or they can just “fight it” when usually the ill person is blowing through tons of medical bills and isn’t giving herself a pleasurable experience." Because it is something that I agree with a lot and it is really well said. Something I think you could have done which many people including myself could have done was refer to a document or something we watched in class. All in all interesting.

Thoughts following illness & dying unit

Nightmarish industrial atrocities in our practices surrounding illness and dying  are how shielded many of us are about the reality of it. Many of us think with the right medical care one will overcome their illness or they can just “fight it” when usually the ill person is blowing through tons of medical bills and isn’t giving herself a pleasurable experience. A government funded home hospice would reduce medical costs across the board and make the experience of dying more comforting (I for one would rather die at home then in a hospital). I think when I loved one in my family is dying and I am in the position to make a responsible decision I would like them in their final stages to be at home rather than in a hospital bed where many other strangers have died. It seems that these industrial atrocities could be combated through popular opinion if people were educated on the matter. However the people holding the strings like Monsanto, Tyson, and Medical insurers don’t want these alternatives passed in congress because it would be a set-back for their industry and they would lose a lot of money and their prestige.

Epicurus and Still Life's at the MET

For my project I decided to explore Epicurus’s philosophy in the context of Western culture. I used the information gathered from class via our discussions and based off the reading by Irvin Yalom which summarized much of Epicurus’s philosophies. As a class guided by the text Staring at the Sun by Irvin Yalom , we discussed how Epicurus “view was that life pleasure and pain are so important to human existence that all our actions are governed by seeking pleasure and trying to avoid pain” (www.spring.org.uk). It would follow that in culture, all of the feel good work of art; still lifes for example, will never show pain in any way.

A Basket of Flowers by Jan Brueghel shows dead pedals around a basket of beautifully arranged flowers. When I viewed this at the Metropolitan Museum of Art it seemed out of place for the very reason that it showed these dead pedals on the table which the basket sits atop. This was because when one goes to the museum to view art, much of it is to see the sheer beauty of it; when someone expects a still life it is most commonly of a beautiful vase of flowers or bowl of fresh fruit. This is in accordance to how Western societies would like to view the world, with an absence of death and pain and to have esthetically pleasing images and “happier” images bloated and done over and over again to give this illusion that a flower is this beauty and only that, and fruit by nature are fresh and ripe; in short, to avoid death by highlighting the peak of beauty in a flower’s life. This view is not only distorted but keeps us ignorant, for the few things we can know with certainty about life is that it will come to an end, so rather if we should embrace that these articles of nature will die. Interestingly the couple of still lifes I saw that showed in a very subtle way the passing of life, (referring back to A Basket of Flowers) the pedals that lay dead around the basket were still as bright and vibrant as those painted within the basket. Giving the viewer a false sense of reality about death, similarly to how in a cheesy movie they have the favorite grandparent or hero die by simply saying a few last words and shutting her eyes—as though when someone passes it is peaceful and other than the actual death they looked completely healthy. When in reality the person will most likely look withered and skeletal like, will very possibly ramble about nonsense and most notably lose control of their sphincter releasing the bowels of the last meal they ate. When viewing this at the Met I was able to discuss these aspects that these paintings showed and more importantly didn’t show with a friend who came along with me who is equally enthused about art. The discussions that took place were interesting as I was able to view many of the works at the Met (and later the Whitney Museum) with an illness & dying lens and compare it to my friend who enjoyed the works for the esthetics and the disciplined skill that went into each work.

From the trip to the museums and the reflection that followed I was able to learn that Epicurus’s

Philosophies weren’t a criticism of Western outlook on life but rather an observation. Although we avoid pain and thus avoid death by burying it with thoughts of pleasure, avoiding it is better than dwelling on the inevitable truth which for so many is impossible to overcome. For even Epicurus “taught that the point of all one’s actions was to attain pleasure” (www.iep.utm.edu), in the case of someone constantly fearing death and always thinking about it, why not instead enjoy life’s pleasures even if the may be viewed as avoiding a truth; after all they will make you happier.

                It is important to analyze through the illness & dying lens and criticizing these reflections of society in culture just as it is to criticize McDonald’s advertising through a lens critical of American food ways for one general reason, if a culture is breeding, whether intentional or not, ignorance of something that effects one in their daily lives he should criticize it. It is important to be not only aware of what you may be doing but why you are doing it, from there and only there can you ask yourself: Should I be doing this? Ignorance should never be the reason someone did something they would have otherwise not done if they were aware of what they were doing.

Reading and noting basic materials (government and immorality)

DR. DEATH & WHAT IS TABOO

How we go about our daily lives and the decisions we make are a combination of morality and logic. Things that are weird are deemed so either because they are not moral or they are not logical, and vice versa; if someone does something illogical or immoral it is weird. When something has been recognized as weird and its normal counterpart has also been recognized the norm and those who follow it are given power and those which are weird pay the price. In most modern societies the government has the majority of the power, it would follow then that they often manage what is weird and what is normal in many cases. For example it is weird to be homicidal, thus people who commit homicide get arrested by the police, who are run by the government, to be taken to a judicial court, run by the government, and then they are put in a prison, run by the government. So when Jack Kevorkian was sent to prison for medically assisting people in suicide it was no surprise. He did something immoral, weird and finally illegal because it is not normal. He did this odd act in a government institution which was a medical practice, but the worst of it was that he was not actually a licensed doctor, “you were not licensed to practice medicine when you committed this offense and you hadn't been licensed for eight years” (Judge Jessica Cooper, New York Times).

Science is suppose to very much separate itself from emotion it is to be a study of high professionalism which operates purely on logic. When a hospital operated by people with a scientific degree is doing something immoral it becomes very controversial, because the basis of how the hospital takes place and the procedures that are preformed are very sacred. We have selected individuals to perform these tasks and they use their knowledge to aid those in need, so when they assist someone in their own destruction it becomes very taboo.

OVERCHARCHING FOR MEDICAL TREATMENT

                Hospitals are in place to be a social institution which is available to aid any in need. When someone may think of hospitals and medicine the typical thought would be of a doctor attempting to save someone’s life at all costs, something one might see in shows like ER or House, in turns out the cost is of the patent not the doctor. “Medical bills are a leading factor in more than half of the country’s personal bankruptcies” (Landmark) “Most of those who filed for bankruptcy were middle-class, well-educated homeowners” (CNN), a scary thought. When one reflects on how this might have come to be, who might have made this decision they become stumped.  Surely no one would make medical care so outrageously priced for common people that they could lose everything just for a few individuals to make money. But it is, and it blindsided nearly an estimated one million people who had to declare bankruptcy due to medical expenses in 2009, many of whom had presumed they had medical coverage via insurance.

REFUSING MEDICAL COVERAGE & GOVERNMENT CARELESSNESS

                As previously stated, hospitals are in place to aid the needy; as this may be the goal it is hard to achieve it because health insurance will often not cover patients. “The intent is to maximize profits”( Lee Einer), stated by the insurance industry “hitman”, who worked for insurance industries to help deny coverage to people who are insured. Unlike Kervorkian, this was not illegal and people responsible for denying coverage were not put in jail. Based off what was stated in previous paragraphs and what we know about the role of government it sparks inquiry that these people aren’t locked up as what they are doing is immoral and weird and when things are immoral and weird they are typically illegal. It aswell sparks inquiry about the legitimacy of government, a structure in place to protect the people by way of following the norms and possessions of those people. People bought health insurance in case of a tragedy should befall them, and when an accident did come they were beside themselves unable to receive the investment they made for the very possibility that this kind of thing may happen. In our capitalist-statist structure people were not given what they paid for. Thus an illegitimate transaction took place where the consumer was not informed by the seller of the product they were receiving, and what happened? They paid, received nothing,  and finally had to pay again.

Comments

I did not write up homework 27 so my piers were unable to write anything about that piece which I did not do.
---------------------------------

Chris,

I enjoyed reading your piece as you were able to draw in my head the scene and the feelings well. Your writing is very strong when it comes to the “showing-not-telling”, a writing style which I think is fundamental yet isn’t there in many other peoples works, which can often make it boring to read. The part I really like was in the second paragraph “Somewhere, over the rainbow, way up high’ said the woman in the wheel chair that smiled from ear to ear but revealed no teeth”. Clear and a powerful image, something I aspire to have in my own works. You also had a lot of insights which were directly reflective of the experience you shared.

What you need to improve on however, is your grammar and spelling. There were times where I had to read your work twice to get the meaning you originally intended stuff like ” reframe” instead of refrain. A lot of the grammatical errors probably could have been removed in a read-over/edit. To improve this I would recommend two things; to one read more, the more times you see the right spellings and the grammar used correctly the easier job you’ll have of doing it yourself. The second and easier thing I’d recommend is to write your blogs on a word document first, the computer will point out the mishaps a lot better than that silly blogger spell check.

Overall I enjoyed the piece and believe that with tinkering it can be really great. Hope this helped.

John Tabor

I liked what you said here, it was clear and backed up with evidence which you referenced earlier, "I found it interesting that these people still were willing to pay the horrendous expenses of an intensive care unit, when really it would not increase their quality of life, or length, by any significant amount" this is very much a logical, utilitarian perspective. When dealing with a loved one so close to the end it’s not easy to have a logical clear mind when the alternative can bring on such emotion hardship, and often the even mention of “pulling the plug” or bringing up the idea of not having the life saving operation is taboo. And to keep this loved one on life support the false conception is that things will go back to how they were or that the family will do all they can and pay whatever costs as long as the person stays in their lives. I agree with you, Lucas, that one should keep this open almost unbiased mind (which is impossible) and that people should treat death as a fact of life and something inevitable rather than thinking it can be avoided and avoided when the reality is, as you said, would not increase their quality of life, and probably if anything, lower it for that person and those around that person.

I also enjoyed your last paragraph very much as you explained an insight you brought up before which put me off a bit because I was prepared for that dead horse to receive another beating. But rather you kept the idea fresh by giving new reasons which I also agreed with (which is always nice to read) but never realized, in fact it was so logical and insightful that I was disappointed in myself I hadn’t thought of it before.

The only quarrel I had with your homework is your concision. The last two paragraphs were great, the first two, more specifically the second, were not in fact, it could have been gone completely. The contents of what you talked about could have been understood completely without the blunt explanation. Overall your writing is great, easy to read and interesting, it flows very well and always has at least one new insight.

Hope this helped,

John Tabor

Response to Sicko

Precis:

The freest country ever yet healthcare holds us back from being great. Millions uninsured pray no accident should befall them. But for those who are insured it is still not easy. Insurance companies try everything to not cover their client, with pre-existing conditions, pre-approvals etc. because that is the goal of insurance companies, “the intent is to maximize profit” (Lee Einer). Edgar Kaiser came up with the idea for insurance companies to become a private business with the idea that if they lower medical coverage they will increase profit. In Canada and many European countries health insurance is paid for by the government, and heroes of that country are those who spearheaded the idea. Currently there, it is a human right like shelter or food.