Good news for a change, though this is one of those silver linings that come with dark clouds: Last week New York’s legislature passed a bill outlawing the practice of shackling women prisoners during childbirth. The new law will make New York the fourth state to restrict cuffing of women in labor.
Do the math: That means 46 states and the federal government allow this “barbaric and unconscionable” practice (in the words of Senator Velmanette Montgomery, one of the bill’s sponsors), although apparently the feds are taking steps to restrict shackling of laboring prisoners.
It makes you wonder if, huh, it might be men making these policies. Anyone who has ever been in labor knows you gotta move. Forcing women in labor to lie down and lie still is cruel and unusual punishment that increases pain and raises the likelihood of complications harmful to mother and baby. Shackling a woman raising the likelihood a woman may need a C-section and in turn can cause delay when an emergency C-section becomes necessary, delay that can endanger mother and baby.
(Come to think of it, it’s kind of a metaphor for the ordinary treatment of women in labor by the American medical establishment. In fact, not so long ago, women in labor were regularly tied down to hospital beds.)
Back in 2006, when Amnesty International did a study on the phenomenon, the New York Times ran an article on it. It quoted an Arkansas prison spokeswoman (of course they dug up a woman) defending the practice: “Though these are pregnant women, they are still convicted felons, and sometimes violent in nature. There have been instances when we've had a female inmate try to hurt hospital staff during delivery."
In fact, most women in prison (a full 70 percent) are there for nonviolent offenses, and when Amnesty asked prison officials for examples of women trying to escape during labor, they couldn’t come up with a single case.
Yeah, bulletin to prison officials: a woman in labor is busy (that’s why they call it labor). She doesn’t have time or energy to spare on running away.
(Not surprisingly, this news stirred barely a ripple outside the feminist blogosphere. Cheers to Salon and Our Bodies Ourselves’ blog.)
Another related cloud: A lawsuit by an Arkansas prisoner (serving a brief sentence for a nonviolent offense) over her shackling during labor is still wending its way through the courts. A three-judge panel of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals threw out the claim that the shackling was cruel and unusual punishment, but the ACLU’s National Prison Project successfully demanded a rehearing by the full court. Stay tuned.
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Rosin smackdown
Discovered a new blog today, PhD in Parenting, and found the best researched answer to Hannah Rosin's Case Against Breastfeeding I've yet seen. Check it out.
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Premature births in Washington shooting up
“The rate of premature births is climbing in the United States, with Washington's rise among the steepest in the nation,” shooting up about 30 percent in the last ten years, reports the Seattle Times. Who knew? Why Washington? I can’t imagine, and want to hear more.
There’s lots more that’s intriguing in the article, including this: “Breast-feeding premature babies within the first hour of birth boosts their survival, as does skin-to-skin contact.” And yet I know that these are not the practices of our local hospitals, including the hospital with one of the busiest birth units, which touts itself as Seattle's state-of-the-art place to give birth—Swedish First Hill. A woman I know who was trying to breastfeed her premature infant there was told by a nurse that a premature baby uses more calories trying to breastfeed than she takes in, so why bother. She was also told that breastfeeding, even holding the baby, would “overstimulate” and tire the baby.
(And by the way, speaking of birthing practices that are contrary to what evidence says is best practice: At the same hospital, I have heard numerous stories of women whose non-premature babies were given bottles, despite the mother’s stated wish to breastfeed and without any discussion of alternatives that don’t undermine breastfeeding. Such as, in the case of a newborn who isn’t getting enough milk from nursing, feeding with an eyedropper or with a tube at the mother’s breast, as I did in my first child’s early days.)
The article notes that prematurity occurs at high rates in both third-world and developed countries, but doesn’t explore why this might be, or that the answers look very different for the two categories (or even among populations within, say, the U.S.—such as among affluent, older women having IVF-induced multiple births versus poor, young women of color). Worse, it doesn’t mention that rates of prematurity vary tremendously among countries, even among developed countries. For example, the U.S.'s rate of premature births is double Europe's.
That leaves open the field for readers to dismiss the issue, as one commenter did: “Perhaps we can waste some more time trying to fix something that will always occur.” Premature births will always be with us, like the poor.
As it happens, premature births in the U.S. have been on the rise in tandem with the rise in poverty and inequality. As I've ranted about elsewhere, correlation is not causation, but...
There’s lots more that’s intriguing in the article, including this: “Breast-feeding premature babies within the first hour of birth boosts their survival, as does skin-to-skin contact.” And yet I know that these are not the practices of our local hospitals, including the hospital with one of the busiest birth units, which touts itself as Seattle's state-of-the-art place to give birth—Swedish First Hill. A woman I know who was trying to breastfeed her premature infant there was told by a nurse that a premature baby uses more calories trying to breastfeed than she takes in, so why bother. She was also told that breastfeeding, even holding the baby, would “overstimulate” and tire the baby.
(And by the way, speaking of birthing practices that are contrary to what evidence says is best practice: At the same hospital, I have heard numerous stories of women whose non-premature babies were given bottles, despite the mother’s stated wish to breastfeed and without any discussion of alternatives that don’t undermine breastfeeding. Such as, in the case of a newborn who isn’t getting enough milk from nursing, feeding with an eyedropper or with a tube at the mother’s breast, as I did in my first child’s early days.)
The article notes that prematurity occurs at high rates in both third-world and developed countries, but doesn’t explore why this might be, or that the answers look very different for the two categories (or even among populations within, say, the U.S.—such as among affluent, older women having IVF-induced multiple births versus poor, young women of color). Worse, it doesn’t mention that rates of prematurity vary tremendously among countries, even among developed countries. For example, the U.S.'s rate of premature births is double Europe's.
That leaves open the field for readers to dismiss the issue, as one commenter did: “Perhaps we can waste some more time trying to fix something that will always occur.” Premature births will always be with us, like the poor.
As it happens, premature births in the U.S. have been on the rise in tandem with the rise in poverty and inequality. As I've ranted about elsewhere, correlation is not causation, but...
Thursday, May 7, 2009
A specter is haunting health insurance
Ah, the power of a little fear to make corporations do the right thing. And what could be more terrifying than the specter of (a teensy dose of) socialism? Seems that, faced with the threat of a government-run plan, health insurers are ready to mend their discriminatory habit of charging women more than men for health insurance. This is only the latest bone they’ve thrown: In November insurers agreed they’d accept all customers, without regard to preexisting conditions, and in March they said they’d stop charging more to sick people. Apparently they’ll concede anything to fend off having to compete against a public option, as the Wall Street Journal put it.
It bodes well that the issue is being framed in the terms (and in the Wall Street Journal, no less). All us good capitalists are in favor of competition, right? Why should a private company fear having to compete with clumsy, bloated, ineffective government? This is just the framing supporters of a public option would want. Still, the fight to ensure that there is a public health plan option will be monumental, insurers correctly sensing that this is the crucial nose of the camel of eliminating our crazy system of private insurance.
Back to the issue of gender discrimination in health coverage: When The New York Times began covering the discriminatory insurance practice last fall, insurers defended the practice as based on sound actuarial data; women use more health care than men, especially during their reproductive years.
They were right.
On the data, that is, not on the morality of their discrimination. The issue raises important points about the need to socialize health costs, especially the costs associated with reproducing the species.
The insight goes beyond health costs. Should women bear the overwhelming burden of the caregiving (of both children and the elderly) necessary to continuing the species or should society as a whole share that burden? And what should sharing that burden fairly look like?
Wouldn’t it be nice if health care reform provoked that long overdue conversation. Don’t hold your breath.
P.S. Check out MoveOn's funny ad on the issue of a public health coverage option.
It bodes well that the issue is being framed in the terms (and in the Wall Street Journal, no less). All us good capitalists are in favor of competition, right? Why should a private company fear having to compete with clumsy, bloated, ineffective government? This is just the framing supporters of a public option would want. Still, the fight to ensure that there is a public health plan option will be monumental, insurers correctly sensing that this is the crucial nose of the camel of eliminating our crazy system of private insurance.
Back to the issue of gender discrimination in health coverage: When The New York Times began covering the discriminatory insurance practice last fall, insurers defended the practice as based on sound actuarial data; women use more health care than men, especially during their reproductive years.
They were right.
On the data, that is, not on the morality of their discrimination. The issue raises important points about the need to socialize health costs, especially the costs associated with reproducing the species.
The insight goes beyond health costs. Should women bear the overwhelming burden of the caregiving (of both children and the elderly) necessary to continuing the species or should society as a whole share that burden? And what should sharing that burden fairly look like?
Wouldn’t it be nice if health care reform provoked that long overdue conversation. Don’t hold your breath.
P.S. Check out MoveOn's funny ad on the issue of a public health coverage option.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
