#1 ·
I stumbled upon a somewhat intriguing piece over at:
The article argues that modern childbirth has become excessively medicalized—which is a fair point—but one specific claim really rubbed me the wrong way:
"Giving women the ability to choose certain procedures during labor and postpartum doesn't mean relinquishing control, because the doctor still decides which options are even presented to the woman and retains the power to decide whether or not to honor her choice. "
In my view, it is fundamentally wrong for a physician to act against a patient's explicit refusal. It’s simple logic. If a surgeon says, "I need to perform an appendectomy right now," and the patient responds, "No, I do not consent," then the surgeon cannot proceed. Even if the doctor is absolutely certain the patient will die without it, their role shifts to informing and attempting to persuade; the final call belongs to the individual. Otherwise, you end up with absurd scenarios where you walk into a hospital in Chicago, a doctor decides on a battery of unnecessary tests despite your protests, performs them anyway, and then proceeds with an unneeded surgery just because they felt like it. I'm exaggerating for effect here, certainly, but my point stands: everyone owns their own body. Since no doctor can offer a 100% guarantee of success, a patient must be the one to accept the risks associated with any treatment. Do you all agree?
The article argues that modern childbirth has become excessively medicalized—which is a fair point—but one specific claim really rubbed me the wrong way:
"Giving women the ability to choose certain procedures during labor and postpartum doesn't mean relinquishing control, because the doctor still decides which options are even presented to the woman and retains the power to decide whether or not to honor her choice. "
In my view, it is fundamentally wrong for a physician to act against a patient's explicit refusal. It’s simple logic. If a surgeon says, "I need to perform an appendectomy right now," and the patient responds, "No, I do not consent," then the surgeon cannot proceed. Even if the doctor is absolutely certain the patient will die without it, their role shifts to informing and attempting to persuade; the final call belongs to the individual. Otherwise, you end up with absurd scenarios where you walk into a hospital in Chicago, a doctor decides on a battery of unnecessary tests despite your protests, performs them anyway, and then proceeds with an unneeded surgery just because they felt like it. I'm exaggerating for effect here, certainly, but my point stands: everyone owns their own body. Since no doctor can offer a 100% guarantee of success, a patient must be the one to accept the risks associated with any treatment. Do you all agree?