How do we feel about the term "birth rape" to describe non-consensual procedures performed on birthing women?

[dizietsma]

F-word article on the phenomenon.

Now I know a lot of people have objections to the term, and I'm not saying I necessarily agree with the definition, but I am curious about what the distinction could be. Wikipedia explains that the UK legal definition of sexual assault is- "when a person A intentionally touches another person B, the touching is sexual, B does not consent to the touching, and A does not reasonably believe that B consents."

Now from a lot of traumatic birth stories I've read and heard, the only condition above that it might be argued is not entirely met is the condition that "the touching is sexual". Certainly I think it is not the case that MW and doctors perform violent, invasive, harmful, non-consensual procedures on women's genitals during birth because the get off on it (or at least if there are those that do get off on it, they are the Harold Shipmans, the rare, criminal, insane exceptions), but for the women experiencing these procedures on their genitals it is sexual surely? In that it involves their sexual organs being violated?

Certainly the PTSD experienced by women who have had traumatic births seems very similar to the PTSD experienced by women who have been sexually assaulted.

I'm most interested in what people who have had traumatic births think of the term, accurate or no?

No but the legal definition is -that is what I am getting at. It is nonsensical.

No worries Scurry.

only 40 years ago the legal definition of rape did not include marital rape. language evolves as starlight says.

Venezuela last year has introduced statutes that essentially recognizes birth rape. How strange of them.

Foxy no-one is denying that birth trauma/ torture/assault exists and should be an issue that we all are aware of and discuss.

It is purely the terminology of birth rape that I disagree with.

It's a pity we spend so much time talking about terms and not the ways we can educate and support the suffers. But saying that I cannot give it up and say call it what you like.

When I was a student midwife I saw a midwife carry on with an internal exam even though the woman was pleading with her to stop. I think the midwife would normally have stopped but in this case the fetal heart was very low and it could have been argued that it really was a matter of life or death to see how dilated the woman was.

It really made me think what I would do in this position. I always say to women that if they want me to stop then to tell me and I'll stop straight away - I want them to feel that they have control. And I do think even in such a situation I would stop. Even if that meant the baby died.

I just don't think the woman would be very grateful though. Would she rather in the cold light of the next day have a live baby and an internal that carried on longer than what she could cope with. Or would she think well the baby's dead but at least the midwife took her hand out when I asked her to? Well even if she regreted her choice at least she couldn't sue me for assualt which if I carried on and saved her baby's life she could do.

I don't think "birth rape" is the correct terminology though. There's no sexual intent. It is however assualt.

it could have been argued that it really was a matter of life or death to see how dilated the woman was.

But seriously could she not have explained to the woman beforehand I need to do this or the baby will die, that's all people want, communication.

There is no sexual intent in rape either it is about control. In labour it is also about control.

Agree with mamatomany.

For me it felt like rape and I still suffer some of the long term psychological damage of other rape victims so I am at peace with calling it that.

I can't watch OBEM because of the experiences that I had at that hospital.

I think this is symptomatic of a broader bad attitude of certain sections the medical profession.
On one end of the scale, I have had blood tests and injections by stealth.
At the other end, I have come round from a seizure in hospital crying because I didn't know where I was or what had happened, so the nurse slapped me in the face, which I'm quite confident she would not have done to a man.

I don't think "rape" is the appropriate word, but assault by penetration is the apt phrase, and I say this having experienced all three. Remember that cases like mine didn't happen in emergency situations, and given just a minute to compose myself (because even touching by a partner can give me flashbacks of being assaulted), I would've consented to a VE. Instead, I was not consulted and not given the chance to consent, let alone prepare. In my case I believe this was punishment for being a teenage mother as it was typical of my treatment during my time there.

I understand that the law states that there must be sexual intent but the motive instead one of asserting power over another is no better.

VivaLeBeaver

"Would she rather in the cold light of the next day have a live baby and an internal that carried on longer than what she could cope with. Or would she think well the baby's dead but at least the midwife took her hand out when I asked her to?"

What would've prevented you from explaining the situation to her at the time in order to let her give her informed consent, though?

Mumi - the situation I described that I witnessed the midwife said very clearly to the woman "the chances are you baby could die if you don't let me carry on". She understood this and made an informed choice to tell the midwife to stop. The midwife ignored her.

I know that the midwife truely believed the woman was not making a rational decision due to fear and pain. She was probably right. But it was a very hard call to make. Personally I would have stopped, the woman was very explecit in telling her to. But if it had been me and I'd stopped, that baby could have died.

Is there ever a point where you draw the line and say that the woman is in too much pain/fear to make a rational decision. Its very easy sitting here discussing this in theory to say no, never and that is certainly what I'd like to believe. But when you can hear that baby's heartbeat at 60bpm and its been down that low for ages its not so easy.

Viva - how did that internal save the baby's life? Not doubting you, would just like to know how 'knowing' whether someone is 6cm dilated or 7cm in those circumstances is a matter of life or death. (Given the numbers are pretty rough and ready anyway as you aren't using a ruler.)

(And I think that your colleague was very lucky the woman didn't go to the police. Carrying on a medical procedure once a patient has told you to stop is assault within the legal meaning of the term. I am sure your colleague was motivated by the desire to save life but she was on very dodgy ground. Being in labour does not take away a woman's legal rights.)

The midwife wanted to know whether the woman was fully dilated and therefore whether an instrumental delivery could be quicker than going to theatre for a lscs. Having an instrumental if fully would be quicker than going to theatre. But you need to not only make sure she's fully but also see if OP/OA and what descent is.

Edam - agree that been in labour doesn't take away a woman's rights. Which is why I've said in that situation I'd stop.

I wrote a big reflection at the time saying that if the m/w had taken a step back and spent 30secs/a minute trying to calm the woman down it may have helped. There was a sense of panic in the room that wasn't helping. I was trying to talk to the woman but its hard when she's mid VE and screaming at the m/w to stop.

Ah, I see. Still the women's choice, not the midwife's, though. Even if the consequences are a delay i.e. having to go to C-section not forceps.

Btw, when I complained about the midwife who performed a sweep without even informing me, let alone asking me, the hospital fell over themselves to take it seriously and assure me that they had done X, Y and Z to make sure it never, ever, happened again. Hope they were telling the truth. Unwanted sweep is nothing compared to what some people suffer, of course. But it was an assault.

Wish I'd been together enough when ds was a baby to complain about their shite staffing levels when I was in labour as well...

Think you were very probably right there, Viva.

How did it end Viva ? I can't imagine a woman objecting to a VE would be happy with an instrumental birth either.

The consultant came in the room and the woman was refusing to let him/us do anything. So he said to get an epidural on board for pain relief - so that was done took about 40mins. FH was still crap all this time, she had an instrumental delivery. Baby was in poor condition and taken up to NNU. I'm guessing it made a full recovery as I never had to make a statement.

I went to see the woman the next day. She was still very cross with the midwife, though I don't recall her being cross about the VE. She was really upset becasue "that bloody midwife told me my baby might die".

I can understand its an upsetting thing to hear but its just funny that there's been so many threads lately about women not being able to make an informed choice. Here was a woman upset because she was given all the information so she could make an informed choice. I'm guessing though that perhaps if there'd been a better relationship with her m/w she may have been more receptive to such info.

I'm guessing though that perhaps if there'd been a better relationship with her m/w she may have been more receptive to such info.

I think that's absolutely the case, my role involves teaching medical staff how to communicate with patients (it'll no doubt axed with the cuts) but the amount of time, energy, drugs and misdiagnoses which come about because the HPC hasn't built trust with the patient and the communication is poor as a result, is disgraceful and wide spread.

amen to that, mama.

The term is harsh but one i can identify with , because thats exactly what it feels like .