Comparative Analysis to Health care in the United States vs. Health Care in Canada and a little bit to other countries. Why is health care so difficult in the United States and why doesn't anyone do anything about it?
In the United States health care is a big issue that people and families have to face at least once whether it is a big medical treatment that is denied by health insurance or the big expenses and dept from medical care. America is supposedly one of the countries that spend the most on health insurance according to the OECD (Organization of Economic Co-operation and Development). This is ironic because America is also one of the countries with the highest prices and expenses for one to get health care services(Wikipedia.com). In America, there is almost no such thing as free health care. Insurance companies have made is extremely difficult for people to get the right health care, especially for those who are poor and cannot afford health insurance at all. The result of this is the 18 million out of 50 million people who die because of the fact that they do not have health insurance (Micheal Moore, Sicko). It makes one wonder why so many are left with no medical care. It is said that citizens from other countries such as Canada or Britain are far more healthier and have a longer life span than Americans. In Micheal Moore documentary Sicko, mentions that according to the Medical Health Associations, illnesses such as hearth diseases, stroke, lung diseases, cancer, etc are more common and significantly higher to Americans. What is it that causes all the citizens in other countries to be far more healthier? What system are they using that America seems to fail to adopt or realize? The answer may be free health care.
In the United States the health care system are run by a system known as HMO (Health Maintenance Organization). It is a specific type of health care plan that sets guidelines under which doctors can operate and are also mainly run mostly by private businesses. When joining HMO plans a person is usually given a negotiation of certain affordable health care and eliminate unnecessary treatments so HMO can reduce cost. A person is usually provided with one doctor where the doctor works with the HMO in determining what treatments a person does and does not need. Health care coverage through the system of HMO is supposedly to cost less than traditional health care coverage but the catch is that there is usually a limitation and denial of a range of different treatments(WiseGeek.com). In other countries such as Canada, the system is different but first to explore the difficultly that people face with the health care in the United States.
In the United States most people cannot afford certain medical treatments, and most people always seem to have some difficulty when dealing with insurance companies. In my family I have medical insurance known as child health plus and although I have come to many small annoying conflicts with my insurance company I am lucky enough to say I or anyone else in my family have not have any major medical treatments that were denied by our health insurance. As I wish I can say this is true for other families unfortunately in most cases people can be denied of medical treatment whether how extreme the medical problem may be. In the United States those who cannot afford to pay for health insurance or medical bills are thrown out on the street like garbage. This is especially true for homeless people in America. In Los Angles many who cannot afford to pay for a medical bill in hospitals are dumped by the hospitals to the Union Rescue Mission group in downtown Los Angles or maybe even just dumped out on the street(Sicko). This is shown in Micheal Moore documentry as he states "Is this what we've become? A nation that dumps their citizens like so much garbage on the side of the curb because they can't pay for the medical bill?" Those who can afford health insurance and afford to pay medical bills get the medical treatment they need but as for the others are associated to garbage. This is most likely why the 18 million people out of the 50 million die.
It is common to hear that Canada has a better health care system then the United States. Although this can be a matter of opinion. In interviews that were conducted during a session in history class there were many different opinions on the American health care system by common citizens in the streets of New York. Many who said that they very much liked the American health care system are people who were most likely either rich or are payed for by the government since they were people who worked for the government. For example was a elderly man on crutches, he stated that the health care system in the US was a 10 out of 10 for him and the best health care. He stated that his doctor charged him more for a medical treatment since he was rich and he was okay with that. This shows the idea how those who can afford the medical bills get the medical treatment they they need. Although others disagree with the American Health care system such as Scott Chesler who stated "Health is a right and the government should be giving people means to be more healthy." and that "If the government is not keeping us healthy then what are they doing?" He also mentioned that the health care system maybe should not be exactly socialist like England or Cuba but the government should definitely provide the health care that is needed. Unlike the United States Canada's health car esystem is more of a single payer which is a system where everyone is covered by the same plan which pays private providers(Class Notes, Andy Synder). The advantages to this is that since it is free it enables there citizens to get the proper health care they need. This may be one of the main reasons that some Americans citizens who cannot afford health care go to Canada to get there health care even though this is illegal if you are not an acutal Canadian citizen. Many Canadians who visit America on the other hand tend to buy insurance before stepping over the boarder because of the 'just in case' reasons since they do not want to get caught in the American Health system in case anything happens that causes them to need medical attention (show in Sicko). "It turns out that Canadians live three years longer then we do" (Micheal Moore, Sicko).
Another country with free health care along with England and Canada is France. What are some reasons that these countries are using this system and not America? I mean free health for everyone does not sound like a bad thing does it? One of the reasons is fear and protest. For example in Sicko, Micheal Moore interviews a group of Americans that are living in France and something I found insightful that was mentioned to why America may not be getting the basic needs they want as much as France is because the government in France are afraid of the people.As if the people run their country the government fear protest and bad reactions from the citizens. In the United States it's almost the complete opposite, the people seem to be more afraid of the government and are afraid of protesting. We fear the government that we are not willing to stand up what we believe is unfair or wrong. Micheal Moore also mentioned that as America sees another good idea such as a better car, a better wine, better technology that another country comes up with, America does not seem so hesitant to adopt that idea so why is it that America is having such a hard time being able to adopt a better health care system that will insure better health and at least one less hardship for all? The answer to this could be the conclusion that Micheal Moore's documentary when he stated that other countries" live in a world of 'we' not 'me', we'll never fix anything until we get that one basic thing right. and powerful forces hope that we never do." Without this basic concept of thinking as a country whole and not just about the money we make in out pockets America will keep being one of the only countries without free health care and will remain at a low on the list of good health care. And the "powerful forces" may have more power but if we continue to give them that power and not do anything about it we may never receive anything that will better out lives and our health.
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Sunday, April 19, 2009
Health Care
The movie Sicko explores the health care systems in the United States and how health care companies try to get as many people to sign up for there health care plan and also the many people who are denied certain health care. It also compares the health care system in the United States to many other country's health care systems.
My health care plan is Child Health Plus which what I think is quite common for most. The health care company is Empire and I have never faced any major emergency problems where I am denied any care but I have encountered many scenarios for denial of care of smaller things. One of the main thing that my health care denies the most is situations dealing with dental care. It puzzles me and makes me wonder what is going on since my father who needs some pretty major surgery on his spine because of a fractured disc is able to get the surgery since the health care is in fact covering the procedure. I was surprised when my dad told me that our health care is going to cover his procedure. Although luckily my dad's surgery has be approved I have come across many problems that are not as major that have been denied by my health care. For example is when I got a root canal and went to the dentist, after the procedure was done as soon as I was going to get the crown to insure my tooth would be okay my dentists tells me "your health care company doesn't cover crowns." At that moment I was so puzzled and annoyed. The dentist ended up filling up the giant whole in my tooth but told me I would need to get a crown eventually because the filling would not last forever. That was around 6 months ago and to this very day I still have not gotten the approval to get a crown. Another thing that my health care does not cover is birth control. It frustrated me on how many tiny little things that my health care denies to treat but it also makes me wonder why they would accept to cover my dad's surgery and not cover all my tiny little treatments. Does Child Health Plus not have as many benefits as if you were an adult? Although there has always been a little annoyance my family's experience with health care isn't not that bad. Most of the heavy bills and bad experiences my family had to deal with is dental care. It does not compare to those in the movie Sicko, like the man who was denied surgery and ended up dieing because of the health care companies denial of treatment.
The morals for health in the United States are horrible. It is surprising to me how other countries, people are almost never denied of health care and go into the hospitals sick and come out totally healthy. It makes me wonder more to why the United States does not adopt these other health care systems that other countries have. Personally I think that people's health should not be needed to be made into a waiting game of whether they can or cannot get certain treatments.
My health care plan is Child Health Plus which what I think is quite common for most. The health care company is Empire and I have never faced any major emergency problems where I am denied any care but I have encountered many scenarios for denial of care of smaller things. One of the main thing that my health care denies the most is situations dealing with dental care. It puzzles me and makes me wonder what is going on since my father who needs some pretty major surgery on his spine because of a fractured disc is able to get the surgery since the health care is in fact covering the procedure. I was surprised when my dad told me that our health care is going to cover his procedure. Although luckily my dad's surgery has be approved I have come across many problems that are not as major that have been denied by my health care. For example is when I got a root canal and went to the dentist, after the procedure was done as soon as I was going to get the crown to insure my tooth would be okay my dentists tells me "your health care company doesn't cover crowns." At that moment I was so puzzled and annoyed. The dentist ended up filling up the giant whole in my tooth but told me I would need to get a crown eventually because the filling would not last forever. That was around 6 months ago and to this very day I still have not gotten the approval to get a crown. Another thing that my health care does not cover is birth control. It frustrated me on how many tiny little things that my health care denies to treat but it also makes me wonder why they would accept to cover my dad's surgery and not cover all my tiny little treatments. Does Child Health Plus not have as many benefits as if you were an adult? Although there has always been a little annoyance my family's experience with health care isn't not that bad. Most of the heavy bills and bad experiences my family had to deal with is dental care. It does not compare to those in the movie Sicko, like the man who was denied surgery and ended up dieing because of the health care companies denial of treatment.
The morals for health in the United States are horrible. It is surprising to me how other countries, people are almost never denied of health care and go into the hospitals sick and come out totally healthy. It makes me wonder more to why the United States does not adopt these other health care systems that other countries have. Personally I think that people's health should not be needed to be made into a waiting game of whether they can or cannot get certain treatments.
Sunday, April 5, 2009
Wealth is like Musical Chairs
Poverty in the United States is a big problem as around 35.9 million people are living below the poverty line, the poverty line is 1400 dollars in the US. According to (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_people_in_america_are_homeless)"Approximately 750,000 Americans are homeless due to lack of employment, mental illness, drug abuse, physical and mental abuse, lack of or low education, developmental disabilities and the stigma of HIV/AIDS( National Coalition for the Homeless,2001)." When reading this answer you can notice that this answer implies that those who are poor or homeless are mainly because of problems that involve their personal fault like illnesses or drug abuse. I think this answer can be true to my guess of 10% of the time the other 90% it is not because is is not always the poor people's fault. I think this is a ridiculous reason because even though as we discussed in class that some main theories to those in poverty is lower expectations, subculture of poverty, kids that are influenced that by throwing out their education they win by loosing, etc, but one main significant reason to why poverty is consuming most of the Untied States is because there just is not enough damn opportunities provided for those trying to get out from under the poverty line.
In class we demonstrated a number of different reasons and explanation of poverty in America by using chairs. First we played a game of musical chairs. Everyone should be familiar with this game, there are only a limited amount of chairs or "slots" for people to claim until they have no choice to sit out as not all are willing to fight or kick each other for a seat. Comparing this game to poverty the chairs are suppose to represent number of opportunities such as employment or aids such as health care or food stamps, etc. People have to fight for their "chair" and those who cannot fight are not helped at all and are even blamed for their lack of will power to fight for those opportunities and are even blamed for being lazy.
When learning in class about the wealth distribution in the United States, it is really shocking how unfair it is as there is that 1% of people who claim 17.5% of the wealth the the US as the bottom 60 million only have 2.2% of the wealth. To visually demonstrate this unfairness to the class we again used a line up row of chairs. Each chair represented I think 5% of the wealth. In the front of the line of chairs the one percent or the one person claimed 5 of the chairs all the himself. As the next one person claimed 4 of the chairs, the next two people had to chair four chairs, and the numbers shrink and shrink till people become cramped at the end of the live where around five people are so are cramped up and are forced to chair one or two chairs. The cramped up people at the end of the row represent the huge amount of people who are in poverty and only get the tiny percent of wealth compared to those three or four people in the front of the row that are living large. This is clearly an unfair distribution but ironically it is an example for how the wealth is distributed in the United States.
Lastly, with another game of musical chairs, this time the game was a little different as some of the chairs were claimed by certain people in the class. These three people represented the rich. As the game went on, more and more chairs were claimed by the same people as more people where being booted out of the game. In the end of the game, all the chairs were claimed by the same three people and for those did not have a name on a chair we either had to fight for a chair without a name on it or we had to give up. At the end there was only one chair left that was not claimed. If i could remember the last chair was claimed by Kevin Williams, the rest of us were being blamed for our lack of will and our laziness for not fighing for the chair as that oppourtunity could have been open to anyone. The last chair that was not claimed is to signify how there is always that one tiny and almost impossible to get oppourtunity to claim so that the poor are able to fight for it and can never mention that there were no opportunities and are made to blame themselves for not being able to claim that oppourtunity. Again, there are not enough opportunities because all the opportunities are already claimed by the rich. Those who are poor wish they were middle class, and those who had claimed 4 chairs wished they had the next ran up claiming 6 chairs. It just shows how the people, even those who are rich enough just look up to wanting to be those who are richer. What about those under poverty, are they really being helped enough? Those who are rich get so much opportunities already. Even if there is certain welfare and aids for those who are poor the tax is the United States does not help either. The tax in the United States is mostly regressive which basically means that those who are poor pay a higher percent of income then those who are rich. With this new knowledge learned in class I think the reasoning on that website of people in poverty because of their own fault should definitely be changed as it is not always the people in poverty's fault and is the system in the United States for not giving enough opportunity to be blamed.
In class we demonstrated a number of different reasons and explanation of poverty in America by using chairs. First we played a game of musical chairs. Everyone should be familiar with this game, there are only a limited amount of chairs or "slots" for people to claim until they have no choice to sit out as not all are willing to fight or kick each other for a seat. Comparing this game to poverty the chairs are suppose to represent number of opportunities such as employment or aids such as health care or food stamps, etc. People have to fight for their "chair" and those who cannot fight are not helped at all and are even blamed for their lack of will power to fight for those opportunities and are even blamed for being lazy.
When learning in class about the wealth distribution in the United States, it is really shocking how unfair it is as there is that 1% of people who claim 17.5% of the wealth the the US as the bottom 60 million only have 2.2% of the wealth. To visually demonstrate this unfairness to the class we again used a line up row of chairs. Each chair represented I think 5% of the wealth. In the front of the line of chairs the one percent or the one person claimed 5 of the chairs all the himself. As the next one person claimed 4 of the chairs, the next two people had to chair four chairs, and the numbers shrink and shrink till people become cramped at the end of the live where around five people are so are cramped up and are forced to chair one or two chairs. The cramped up people at the end of the row represent the huge amount of people who are in poverty and only get the tiny percent of wealth compared to those three or four people in the front of the row that are living large. This is clearly an unfair distribution but ironically it is an example for how the wealth is distributed in the United States.
Lastly, with another game of musical chairs, this time the game was a little different as some of the chairs were claimed by certain people in the class. These three people represented the rich. As the game went on, more and more chairs were claimed by the same people as more people where being booted out of the game. In the end of the game, all the chairs were claimed by the same three people and for those did not have a name on a chair we either had to fight for a chair without a name on it or we had to give up. At the end there was only one chair left that was not claimed. If i could remember the last chair was claimed by Kevin Williams, the rest of us were being blamed for our lack of will and our laziness for not fighing for the chair as that oppourtunity could have been open to anyone. The last chair that was not claimed is to signify how there is always that one tiny and almost impossible to get oppourtunity to claim so that the poor are able to fight for it and can never mention that there were no opportunities and are made to blame themselves for not being able to claim that oppourtunity. Again, there are not enough opportunities because all the opportunities are already claimed by the rich. Those who are poor wish they were middle class, and those who had claimed 4 chairs wished they had the next ran up claiming 6 chairs. It just shows how the people, even those who are rich enough just look up to wanting to be those who are richer. What about those under poverty, are they really being helped enough? Those who are rich get so much opportunities already. Even if there is certain welfare and aids for those who are poor the tax is the United States does not help either. The tax in the United States is mostly regressive which basically means that those who are poor pay a higher percent of income then those who are rich. With this new knowledge learned in class I think the reasoning on that website of people in poverty because of their own fault should definitely be changed as it is not always the people in poverty's fault and is the system in the United States for not giving enough opportunity to be blamed.
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Wealth and Poverty Internet Research
1-What percentage of people are below the poverty line?
According to the US Census Bureau, 35.9 million people live below the poverty line in America.
http://www.soundvision.com/Info/poor/statistics.asp
2-How many of those are children under the poverty line?
There is 12.9 million children living under the poverty line.
http://www.soundvision.com/Info/poor/statistics.asp
3-How many people who are in poverty actually own there own homes?
43% of people who are poor actually own there own homes.The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.
http://www.heritage.org/research/welfare/bg2064.cfm
4-What are the poverty rates of different races?
Poverty rate for African Americans: 26.1 percent
Poverty rate for Asians and Pacific Islanders: 12.5 percent
Poverty rate for Hispanics of any race: 25.6 percent
Poverty rate for non-Hispanic whites: 8.2 percent
http://www.soundvision.com/Info/poor/statistics.asp
5-What are percentage of people under the poverty line in other countries?
Hondurans: 50.7%
Afghanistan: 53%
South Africa: 50%
Venezuela: 47%
Dominican Republic: 42.2%
Pakistan: 35%
Brazil: 31%
Philippines: 30%
Romania: 25%
Spain: 19.8%
Russia: 14.8%
Mexico: 13.8%
Canada: 10.8%
China: 8%
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_pop_bel_pov_lin-economy-population-below-poverty-line
6-What are the the different ages of people in poverty?
The poverty rate increased for people 18 to 64 years old (from 10.8 percent in 2003 to 11.3 percent in 2004), but declined for those age 65 and older (from 10.2 percent in 2003 to 9.8 percent in 2004).
http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/income_wealth/005647.html
7-What is the Census Bureau?
"Government agency that is responsible for the United States Census. It also gathers other national demographic and economic data. The Bureau of the Census is part of the United States Department of Commerce. The agency director is a political appointee selected by the current President."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Census_Bureau
According to the US Census Bureau, 35.9 million people live below the poverty line in America.
http://www.soundvision.com/Info/poor/statistics.asp
2-How many of those are children under the poverty line?
There is 12.9 million children living under the poverty line.
http://www.soundvision.com/Info/poor/statistics.asp
3-How many people who are in poverty actually own there own homes?
43% of people who are poor actually own there own homes.The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.
http://www.heritage.org/research/welfare/bg2064.cfm
4-What are the poverty rates of different races?
Poverty rate for African Americans: 26.1 percent
Poverty rate for Asians and Pacific Islanders: 12.5 percent
Poverty rate for Hispanics of any race: 25.6 percent
Poverty rate for non-Hispanic whites: 8.2 percent
http://www.soundvision.com/Info/poor/statistics.asp
5-What are percentage of people under the poverty line in other countries?
Hondurans: 50.7%
Afghanistan: 53%
South Africa: 50%
Venezuela: 47%
Dominican Republic: 42.2%
Pakistan: 35%
Brazil: 31%
Philippines: 30%
Romania: 25%
Spain: 19.8%
Russia: 14.8%
Mexico: 13.8%
Canada: 10.8%
China: 8%
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_pop_bel_pov_lin-economy-population-below-poverty-line
6-What are the the different ages of people in poverty?
The poverty rate increased for people 18 to 64 years old (from 10.8 percent in 2003 to 11.3 percent in 2004), but declined for those age 65 and older (from 10.2 percent in 2003 to 9.8 percent in 2004).
http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/income_wealth/005647.html
7-What is the Census Bureau?
"Government agency that is responsible for the United States Census. It also gathers other national demographic and economic data. The Bureau of the Census is part of the United States Department of Commerce. The agency director is a political appointee selected by the current President."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Census_Bureau
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Welfare and Tax Systems
For the beginning of this new unit we learned about the American Welfare and Tax system. The U.S. social welfare structure has been shaped both by long standing traditions and by changing economic and social conditions. In welfare, the poverty line for poor people in the United States is 1,400. For many of those who are under this poverty line can be provided with many free programs provided for those who are poor such as food stamps, free child day care centers and many more then imagined. Two key vocabulary words that were brought up is charity and solidarity. The difference between the two is that charity is when someone feels sorry for another person as solidarity is when people work together to help get ahead. A few key vocabulary I learned from learning about the tax system is Flat Tax, Regressive Tax, Progressive Tax. All which describe a little part of different tax systems in the United States. First, a Flat tax is a system that taxes everyone at the same rate, regardless of their income bracket whether you are poor or rich. The tax bracket system is the system of how someone is taxed based of their individual income levels. So those who have a lower income will be in a lower bracket in which pay a lower tax rate. A regressive tax system is a system in which poor people must pay higher percent of income then rich people. For example if a person is buying a product and the tax on the product is one dollar and person a has ten dollars and buys the product his income would be 10% as if a had twenty dollars in his pocket to buy the product of $1 tax his income would be 5%. A progressive tax system is when rich people pay a higher percent of income than poor people. And effective taxes is how much tax payers are taxed despite the bracket system.
I was not present when the Danish Students presented facts about their Danish tax system. With a little research on the Danish tax system I first found that everyone who lives in Denmark must pay tax if they receive any sort of income. In Denmark you have to pay almost any sort of tax to property tax if you are a home owner, corporate tax if you are a owner to a company, and even church tax from the church. Similar to the tax system in the United States the Danish have to pay tax for a number of goods such as cars, petrol, alcohol and tobacco, etc. As a employee in Denmark tax is taken directly from at the source of your employment before receiving a salary. As a Danish person there is almost never a time where someone is unemployed because if there is a person that is unemployed and seeking work the system will try to automatically assign you another job. In the United States there are many programs that can assist with finding people jobs but it may not be as easy as those who are in need of jobs with so little experience end up with very low paying jobs. Compared to the United States the Denmark tax system is more of a progressive tax system, how much a person pays depends on the income and tax allowance of that person. The purpose of this system is to ensure that those who earn most contribute most towards society which is what apparently the united states is trying to do, but we will have to see what the outcome of the United States will be. In my opinion I think that even though the Danish tax system may be a little higher in taxing on things but adopting to the fact that the government are there to provide you with a job when unemployed would definitely benefit a lot of those in America and help those who are hopeless and at least help those get up to the poverty line to be able to afford food and shelter.
I was not present when the Danish Students presented facts about their Danish tax system. With a little research on the Danish tax system I first found that everyone who lives in Denmark must pay tax if they receive any sort of income. In Denmark you have to pay almost any sort of tax to property tax if you are a home owner, corporate tax if you are a owner to a company, and even church tax from the church. Similar to the tax system in the United States the Danish have to pay tax for a number of goods such as cars, petrol, alcohol and tobacco, etc. As a employee in Denmark tax is taken directly from at the source of your employment before receiving a salary. As a Danish person there is almost never a time where someone is unemployed because if there is a person that is unemployed and seeking work the system will try to automatically assign you another job. In the United States there are many programs that can assist with finding people jobs but it may not be as easy as those who are in need of jobs with so little experience end up with very low paying jobs. Compared to the United States the Denmark tax system is more of a progressive tax system, how much a person pays depends on the income and tax allowance of that person. The purpose of this system is to ensure that those who earn most contribute most towards society which is what apparently the united states is trying to do, but we will have to see what the outcome of the United States will be. In my opinion I think that even though the Danish tax system may be a little higher in taxing on things but adopting to the fact that the government are there to provide you with a job when unemployed would definitely benefit a lot of those in America and help those who are hopeless and at least help those get up to the poverty line to be able to afford food and shelter.
Sunday, March 15, 2009
The American Way of Birth Essay Assignment
Birth to most women should be a joyful and in power experience in which a woman's needs are met and a special bond between the mother and the family is created especially between the mother and the new born child. After the American Way of Birth unit in history class I began to feel that my eyes were being opened to how the birth process in our society is going in the completely opposite direction from the wondrous birth process a woman should experience. Hospitals are to many people are perceive as being a clean, safe and professional place for any medical conditions and is also the most common place where most women give birth. Hospitals are the most common place for births compared to the alternative birth that most people have not even heard of which can be taken place in our own homes or in a actual birth center. This can be done with the supervision and the help from a certified midwife. Midwifes are not as commonly looked at as professional or experienced as people see doctors but midwifes are taught specifically to care for a women and her birth. What is it that people do not see? The American Way of Birth or the Normal way of Birth may not be as safe and comforting as people have been taught to think. The perception of a "safe" hospital with a "professional" doctor may not be as true, a natural birth with midwifes on the other hand may just be a better alternative instead.
In our society a hospital birth is the most common place of 'trained professionals' that will be there to get you through the process. The most common answer people may say is that in hospitals it is more comfortable as the pain of contractions can be melted away by a single epidural. This is one of the reasons why hospitals are so common, it is fear of labor that drives women away from taking control of their own birth."[Women] watch these programs, i think there is a lot of fear distilled in these woman around birth" stated in the documentary The Business of Being Born by Carolyn Havens Neimann, a certified nurse midwife. Many women are given the idea that the process of birth is bad and painful, we see this everyday in movies, television shows, hospital birth stories of women screaming, crying and begging for an epidural. The hospitals, as if giving a big billboard for women to see is suppose to be easier, faster, you can skip the pains but it is really all that comfortable? Women would realize it was not so comfortable if the hospital process would be questioned. One example is the lethotomy position, before this unit even I did not know that the lethotomy position that a women is put in at a hospital birth is completely pointless. The lethotomy position is a position where the women is lying flat on her back with her legs up in the air for her vagina to be exposed for the rest of the room to see. That does not sound as comfortable as it could be for a women in labor. I always thought that it was necessary to be in the position for the baby to come out quicker and the mother to feel for comfortable but in fact this is totally incorrect. In fact it is actually a more comfortable position for the doctor to be able to be in control and see what is going on in a vaginal delivery. "The lethotomy position is the most physiologically dysfunctional position ever invented for birth, because putting a mother flat on her back literally makes the pelvis smaller and makes is much more difficult for the women to use her stomach muscles to push and therefore makes it much more likely that an episiotomy will be cut or forceps will be used..." stated in Business of Being Born by Robbie Davis Floyd, Medical Anthropologist. This position in no way really helps the mother in labor but in rather helps the doctor. It really makes one think who is it suppose to be benefiting, the women or the doctor? No one really questions the way of the doctors do things because they are looked at as 'trained professionals' thus making the idea that women cannot be in control of their own birth. Doctors are being looked at as a higher authority and whatever the doctor says a women will think its right but in other cases most doctors have not ever even seen a real natural birth before, not even in medical school. Women should wonder if the hospital is really giving them their basic needs or if they are just being robbed of that wonderful and in powering birth experience.
Hospitals are meant to be places of safety for those with medical conditions and any birth complications. One thing that is forgotten is that pregnancy is not a medical condition but it is treated like one in a hospital. One of my favorite quotes I heard from the unit is that "Hospitals are businesses, they want those beds filled and emptied. They don't want women hanging around in the labor room"(said by Patricia Burkhardt a clinical associate professor, Business of Being Born). As ironic as this is, it is true. This is what causes what is known as the Snowball Effect. The Snowball effect (got this term and information from Business of Being Born) is the process in which the women ends up for an emergency cesarean. It starts out with a women not giving birth in the schedule that the doctor expects her to give birth, that is when they start their intervention and as the interventions start they won't stop. If a women is not giving birth at the rate the doctor wants she is then given pitocin which is a drug given to women that make longer and harder contractions thus causing the women to have even more pain. Since the women is in more pain they give her an epidural, although the women feels less pain this drug slows down the contractions where it gives the doctor the oppourtunity to put more pitocin since the women does not feel a thing. And although the mother does not feel a thing the baby is overwhelmed by the contractions with causes distress which in the end the doctor will sent off the women for an emergency cesarean. As they eventual get the baby out the doctors are looked at as heroes that saved the baby but in fact no one ever realized that if it wasn't for the overflowing amounts of interventions there would have been no need for a cesarean in the end. Even Dr. Micheal Silverstein an OB/GYN states that "there is clearly an association with induction of labor and cesarean delivery." but as obvious as it is to most doctors, to mothers or other people they have no clue. Through out the birth history in America, in 2006, 31% of U.S. Births were by C-section, a 50% increase over the previous decade(Answer prove elusive as C-section Rate Rises Article by Rita Rubin). As well as the Cesarean rate rising the U.S. has one of the highest infant mortality rates among all the industrialized countries (fact stated in Business of Being Born documentary). There is a possible link between hospitals and the risen rate of deaths of birth and possible cesareans in the U.S. Cesareans are seen by women as a faster way to give birth, well this is mostly true to most doctors as well. Many women are blinded by the 'professionalism' of doctors which gives the doctors control of when they think a women is ready to have their baby. Women have never thought that when their ready to give birth their body will tell them. Cesareans are usually the best types of births for doctors because they are scheduled to the doctor's schedules and are only a quick slice taking 20 minutes or so where the doctor can head home early for dinner at the end of the night. Not only is it more convenient for the doctor but a normal birth is less exciting for the doctors. "The doctors are just not excited by things when there normal" stated by Dr. Jacques Mortiz an OB/GYN. It maybe exciting for the doctor and a quicker way to get home but the thing that is most significantly forgotten which is the mother and the baby. As easy as it is for the doctor no one ever really remembers the safety and the comfort of the mother in the hospital.
A midwife is someone who is trained to handle and assist with the mother before, during, and after birth. According to Stacey Stick on http://www.feminist.com/resources/artspeech/family/stacy.htm one of the best things about having a midwife or about birth is "One of the most holy, natural, energizing (and painful) experiences a woman accomplishes in her lifetime is nurturing her unborn child." Obstetricians are trained for surgery and should not be doing normal births because they are not trained in it as midwifes are. The philosophy of doctor's and hospitals are completely opposite. In the American/Normal way of birth is that many women are being blamed for dysfunctional labors even though this is most obviously not true. Many midwives believe in what is called the Sphincter Law as many obstetricians believe in the Three P's. The Three P's stantds for Passenger which is the baby, the passage which is the vagina and the power which is the strength of thecontractions. According to Ina Gaskin, a certified midwife who wrote the book Ina May's Guide to Childbirth mentions that the three P's law creates misunderstanding of the true potential of a women's body. Most women have so much more potential to give birth and feel the wondrous feeling of accomplishment after having a natural birth rather then a birth at a hospital where that feeling is taken away from the women. The basic philosophy that a midwife follows is the basics of the Sphincter law. Some things that are stated in the Sphincter law is that the cervical or vagina is like a sphincter no different to the anus or any other sphincter in the body. "It may suddenly close down if that person becomes upset, frightened, humiliated, or self conscious. Why? high levels of adrenaline in the bloodstream do not favor(sometimes they actually prevent) the opening of the sphincters." stated in Ina May's book on The Basics of Sphincter Law. Most women are humiliated in hospitals and uncomfortable which according to the sphincter law will cause the women to have a harder time pushing the baby out. Although with a midwife at home or at a birth center a women is pampered, massaged, and to be made as comfortable as possible. These are one of the main differences between a hospital birth and a home birth. And not only does a women have a more relaxed (not saying it is not painful) experience but it gives a women a feeling as if they accomplished it on their own and they can rise up over anything. According to Riki Lake in her documentary in Business of Being born is that birth is not a illness and it isn't something that needs to be numbed. It is something that needs to be experienced, it can give a women an empowering experience.
As Dr. Michel Odent, OB/GYN and Researcher stated "We are completely lost. And we have even forgotten to raise the most simple questions...What are the most basic needs of women in labor?" It is as if we have totally forgotten the basic needs of a women in labor and rather the basic needs of a doctor at a woman's labor. Because of the basic process of a normal birth in the United States, compared to other countries the death rates in birth are a lot lower. Why? This could be because in most other countries births are attended by Midwifes. "Go to all the highly developed countries where they are loosing fewer women and fewer babies around the time of birth, and what do you see? You see midwifes attending 70 or 80 percent of all the births and the doctors are there to take of the small percent that develop the complications." This is a system that mostly all countries follow and America should as well to keep infant death rates from rising. Obstetricians are surgeons and as surgeons should be a back up rather then the first choice to all births. Personally I think its a better idea for all doctors to be the last resort rather then be in charge of the child birth.
I am glad that I've gotten the oppourtunity to learn this subject as many other schools may not teach this. The women that are not taught to be aware of these things really don't have any other option they can think of but go through the hospital system. There are some questions that I still have for the American Way of Birth. One is: What would it take to change the United State's birth system to the hands of people like midwifes that are suppose to handle births? What do more people outside of the United States, in other countries think of the American birth system? If the American Birth system were to change how would it effect the birth rate in the United States and is it necessarily a good thing?
In our society a hospital birth is the most common place of 'trained professionals' that will be there to get you through the process. The most common answer people may say is that in hospitals it is more comfortable as the pain of contractions can be melted away by a single epidural. This is one of the reasons why hospitals are so common, it is fear of labor that drives women away from taking control of their own birth."[Women] watch these programs, i think there is a lot of fear distilled in these woman around birth" stated in the documentary The Business of Being Born by Carolyn Havens Neimann, a certified nurse midwife. Many women are given the idea that the process of birth is bad and painful, we see this everyday in movies, television shows, hospital birth stories of women screaming, crying and begging for an epidural. The hospitals, as if giving a big billboard for women to see is suppose to be easier, faster, you can skip the pains but it is really all that comfortable? Women would realize it was not so comfortable if the hospital process would be questioned. One example is the lethotomy position, before this unit even I did not know that the lethotomy position that a women is put in at a hospital birth is completely pointless. The lethotomy position is a position where the women is lying flat on her back with her legs up in the air for her vagina to be exposed for the rest of the room to see. That does not sound as comfortable as it could be for a women in labor. I always thought that it was necessary to be in the position for the baby to come out quicker and the mother to feel for comfortable but in fact this is totally incorrect. In fact it is actually a more comfortable position for the doctor to be able to be in control and see what is going on in a vaginal delivery. "The lethotomy position is the most physiologically dysfunctional position ever invented for birth, because putting a mother flat on her back literally makes the pelvis smaller and makes is much more difficult for the women to use her stomach muscles to push and therefore makes it much more likely that an episiotomy will be cut or forceps will be used..." stated in Business of Being Born by Robbie Davis Floyd, Medical Anthropologist. This position in no way really helps the mother in labor but in rather helps the doctor. It really makes one think who is it suppose to be benefiting, the women or the doctor? No one really questions the way of the doctors do things because they are looked at as 'trained professionals' thus making the idea that women cannot be in control of their own birth. Doctors are being looked at as a higher authority and whatever the doctor says a women will think its right but in other cases most doctors have not ever even seen a real natural birth before, not even in medical school. Women should wonder if the hospital is really giving them their basic needs or if they are just being robbed of that wonderful and in powering birth experience.
Hospitals are meant to be places of safety for those with medical conditions and any birth complications. One thing that is forgotten is that pregnancy is not a medical condition but it is treated like one in a hospital. One of my favorite quotes I heard from the unit is that "Hospitals are businesses, they want those beds filled and emptied. They don't want women hanging around in the labor room"(said by Patricia Burkhardt a clinical associate professor, Business of Being Born). As ironic as this is, it is true. This is what causes what is known as the Snowball Effect. The Snowball effect (got this term and information from Business of Being Born) is the process in which the women ends up for an emergency cesarean. It starts out with a women not giving birth in the schedule that the doctor expects her to give birth, that is when they start their intervention and as the interventions start they won't stop. If a women is not giving birth at the rate the doctor wants she is then given pitocin which is a drug given to women that make longer and harder contractions thus causing the women to have even more pain. Since the women is in more pain they give her an epidural, although the women feels less pain this drug slows down the contractions where it gives the doctor the oppourtunity to put more pitocin since the women does not feel a thing. And although the mother does not feel a thing the baby is overwhelmed by the contractions with causes distress which in the end the doctor will sent off the women for an emergency cesarean. As they eventual get the baby out the doctors are looked at as heroes that saved the baby but in fact no one ever realized that if it wasn't for the overflowing amounts of interventions there would have been no need for a cesarean in the end. Even Dr. Micheal Silverstein an OB/GYN states that "there is clearly an association with induction of labor and cesarean delivery." but as obvious as it is to most doctors, to mothers or other people they have no clue. Through out the birth history in America, in 2006, 31% of U.S. Births were by C-section, a 50% increase over the previous decade(Answer prove elusive as C-section Rate Rises Article by Rita Rubin). As well as the Cesarean rate rising the U.S. has one of the highest infant mortality rates among all the industrialized countries (fact stated in Business of Being Born documentary). There is a possible link between hospitals and the risen rate of deaths of birth and possible cesareans in the U.S. Cesareans are seen by women as a faster way to give birth, well this is mostly true to most doctors as well. Many women are blinded by the 'professionalism' of doctors which gives the doctors control of when they think a women is ready to have their baby. Women have never thought that when their ready to give birth their body will tell them. Cesareans are usually the best types of births for doctors because they are scheduled to the doctor's schedules and are only a quick slice taking 20 minutes or so where the doctor can head home early for dinner at the end of the night. Not only is it more convenient for the doctor but a normal birth is less exciting for the doctors. "The doctors are just not excited by things when there normal" stated by Dr. Jacques Mortiz an OB/GYN. It maybe exciting for the doctor and a quicker way to get home but the thing that is most significantly forgotten which is the mother and the baby. As easy as it is for the doctor no one ever really remembers the safety and the comfort of the mother in the hospital.
A midwife is someone who is trained to handle and assist with the mother before, during, and after birth. According to Stacey Stick on http://www.feminist.com/resources/artspeech/family/stacy.htm one of the best things about having a midwife or about birth is "One of the most holy, natural, energizing (and painful) experiences a woman accomplishes in her lifetime is nurturing her unborn child." Obstetricians are trained for surgery and should not be doing normal births because they are not trained in it as midwifes are. The philosophy of doctor's and hospitals are completely opposite. In the American/Normal way of birth is that many women are being blamed for dysfunctional labors even though this is most obviously not true. Many midwives believe in what is called the Sphincter Law as many obstetricians believe in the Three P's. The Three P's stantds for Passenger which is the baby, the passage which is the vagina and the power which is the strength of thecontractions. According to Ina Gaskin, a certified midwife who wrote the book Ina May's Guide to Childbirth mentions that the three P's law creates misunderstanding of the true potential of a women's body. Most women have so much more potential to give birth and feel the wondrous feeling of accomplishment after having a natural birth rather then a birth at a hospital where that feeling is taken away from the women. The basic philosophy that a midwife follows is the basics of the Sphincter law. Some things that are stated in the Sphincter law is that the cervical or vagina is like a sphincter no different to the anus or any other sphincter in the body. "It may suddenly close down if that person becomes upset, frightened, humiliated, or self conscious. Why? high levels of adrenaline in the bloodstream do not favor(sometimes they actually prevent) the opening of the sphincters." stated in Ina May's book on The Basics of Sphincter Law. Most women are humiliated in hospitals and uncomfortable which according to the sphincter law will cause the women to have a harder time pushing the baby out. Although with a midwife at home or at a birth center a women is pampered, massaged, and to be made as comfortable as possible. These are one of the main differences between a hospital birth and a home birth. And not only does a women have a more relaxed (not saying it is not painful) experience but it gives a women a feeling as if they accomplished it on their own and they can rise up over anything. According to Riki Lake in her documentary in Business of Being born is that birth is not a illness and it isn't something that needs to be numbed. It is something that needs to be experienced, it can give a women an empowering experience.
As Dr. Michel Odent, OB/GYN and Researcher stated "We are completely lost. And we have even forgotten to raise the most simple questions...What are the most basic needs of women in labor?" It is as if we have totally forgotten the basic needs of a women in labor and rather the basic needs of a doctor at a woman's labor. Because of the basic process of a normal birth in the United States, compared to other countries the death rates in birth are a lot lower. Why? This could be because in most other countries births are attended by Midwifes. "Go to all the highly developed countries where they are loosing fewer women and fewer babies around the time of birth, and what do you see? You see midwifes attending 70 or 80 percent of all the births and the doctors are there to take of the small percent that develop the complications." This is a system that mostly all countries follow and America should as well to keep infant death rates from rising. Obstetricians are surgeons and as surgeons should be a back up rather then the first choice to all births. Personally I think its a better idea for all doctors to be the last resort rather then be in charge of the child birth.
I am glad that I've gotten the oppourtunity to learn this subject as many other schools may not teach this. The women that are not taught to be aware of these things really don't have any other option they can think of but go through the hospital system. There are some questions that I still have for the American Way of Birth. One is: What would it take to change the United State's birth system to the hands of people like midwifes that are suppose to handle births? What do more people outside of the United States, in other countries think of the American birth system? If the American Birth system were to change how would it effect the birth rate in the United States and is it necessarily a good thing?
Friday, March 6, 2009
Outline of Normal Way of Birth vs. Natural Way of Birth
Intro
-Basic of Unit
-What women need to know
-Why women need to know
-Decision making
-Process of the life changing experience
-What to expect in essay
1. Natural Birth
-Why its alienated (because of technology, fears, seen as unsafe and unfamiliar, not common in US, hospitals want all the money, etc.)
-Process and choices (midwives, Douala, home, healthier for baby and mother...)
-Evidence of why its better: Guest Speakers, video/films(business of being born), break homework videos, sphincter readings,Comfort = less pain, stats (Europe and Japan have 70% of midwives, US only has 8%. Very few doctors have observed a natural birth. Comparing it to animals[giraffe, etc). The Sphincter Law.
-What are the benefits: Mother child connections, tends needs of the mother not doctors, more comfortable, no drugs, gives the women the empowering feeling, follows the women body.
2. The negatives of natural birth
-***This will maybe change, depending on if we actually learn about the negatives of it in up coming classes.
3. The Hospital Birth
-What they offer that home cannot (emergencies like Riki Lake in Business of being born) and C-sections.
-Doctor's opinions.
-Process( Epidural, pitocin, etc).
-The benefits
-***This might also change, depending on if we learn about the positives of hospital births in up coming class.
4. Negatives of hospital birth
-"Hospitals are like businesses, get in and get out" They just want your money and out for the next women to fill you bed.
-Not respecting the needs of the women and rather the needs of the doctors(cause of why there are so many C-sections, pitocin, doctors want to get home).
-Cost
-Risks (C-section, malpractice).
-*Takes away the mother-child connections.
-Sphincter article (The 3 P's, sphincter needs to be comfortable and not frightened shut...)
-"Very few doctors have ever observed a natural birth in medical school"-Susan Hodges
5. Personal
-Personal choice, insight, opinions.
-What was more convince and why?
I think that a natural birth is the right way to go because its a women's body and a woman's body does not need steering. It will react on its own and it gives it a more wondrous and joyful experience. Thus not saying that hospitals are evil but that hospitals should at most be a 'just in case' and back- up, in case of any emergencies, issues of why a women cannot have a vaginal birth, etc, etc.............
***Outline and other things may change depending on while I write the essay or what else I will learn in up coming class***
-Basic of Unit
-What women need to know
-Why women need to know
-Decision making
-Process of the life changing experience
-What to expect in essay
1. Natural Birth
-Why its alienated (because of technology, fears, seen as unsafe and unfamiliar, not common in US, hospitals want all the money, etc.)
-Process and choices (midwives, Douala, home, healthier for baby and mother...)
-Evidence of why its better: Guest Speakers, video/films(business of being born), break homework videos, sphincter readings,Comfort = less pain, stats (Europe and Japan have 70% of midwives, US only has 8%. Very few doctors have observed a natural birth. Comparing it to animals[giraffe, etc). The Sphincter Law.
-What are the benefits: Mother child connections, tends needs of the mother not doctors, more comfortable, no drugs, gives the women the empowering feeling, follows the women body.
2. The negatives of natural birth
-***This will maybe change, depending on if we actually learn about the negatives of it in up coming classes.
3. The Hospital Birth
-What they offer that home cannot (emergencies like Riki Lake in Business of being born) and C-sections.
-Doctor's opinions.
-Process( Epidural, pitocin, etc).
-The benefits
-***This might also change, depending on if we learn about the positives of hospital births in up coming class.
4. Negatives of hospital birth
-"Hospitals are like businesses, get in and get out" They just want your money and out for the next women to fill you bed.
-Not respecting the needs of the women and rather the needs of the doctors(cause of why there are so many C-sections, pitocin, doctors want to get home).
-Cost
-Risks (C-section, malpractice).
-*Takes away the mother-child connections.
-Sphincter article (The 3 P's, sphincter needs to be comfortable and not frightened shut...)
-"Very few doctors have ever observed a natural birth in medical school"-Susan Hodges
5. Personal
-Personal choice, insight, opinions.
-What was more convince and why?
I think that a natural birth is the right way to go because its a women's body and a woman's body does not need steering. It will react on its own and it gives it a more wondrous and joyful experience. Thus not saying that hospitals are evil but that hospitals should at most be a 'just in case' and back- up, in case of any emergencies, issues of why a women cannot have a vaginal birth, etc, etc.............
***Outline and other things may change depending on while I write the essay or what else I will learn in up coming class***
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
