Is some healthcare 'macho' and other healthcare 'feminine'

[jonicomelately]

Listening to a debate about the rights/wrongs of keeping very premature babies alive, I had a bit of a lightbulb moment. One contributor spoke about how the health system threw all their resources at keeping babies alive only for there to be scarce money available later when these babies grow up and need a more 'caring' type of healthcare, physiotherapy for instance. It immediately struck me that keeping a child alive in an instant seemed like a macho, punch the air type of thing to do (although I absolutely concede that woman doctors could as easily do it) and that the more nuturing care could be described as a female type of activity (although again this could be administered by a man). It is the activity rather than the person who carries it out that I think could possibly be given the 'label' iyswim. I wonder whether because we value these macho acts of life-saving more than the female acts of life-enhancing that the latter attracts less funding.

I was really shocked on that thread when one mother said they wouldn't let her decide whether or not to let her baby die. They just want to play God these men. IN other cases, where the woman wants her baby to stay alive, they take her to court to fight her decision.

ON a slightly related topic:
IN Japan parents are starting to sue doctors for problems with their babies , especially if they die. As a result the rules imposed upon pregnant women are even stricter than ever before.
I avoided all the strictures by going for 2 midwife homebirths, but what I'm getting at here is that the doctors make out as though it is they who deliver the healthy babies. They actually believe the normal healthy babies come about thanks to them . They refuse to give information to the mothers about the options available; they're information hoarders, in fact, and women are then supposed to simply "trust" . So when something does go wrong, the logical step to take, from the POV of the parents, is to blame the life-creators i.e the doctors.
Now, if these doctors would just relinquish their control, return it to its rightful place i.e the mothers, then if something happened to the baby there is no-one to blame. It's understood that everyone involved did their best but that sometimes, death is part of life.
I'M not so sure that modern medicine has really done much for birth at all when you think that the U.S has astronomically high maternal and infant death rates, possibly because of their astronomically high C-section rate.
If people want to be involved in the system, that's fine, but there is obviously an drive for life and death to become as medicalized as possible . I think other options should be explored, other more peaceful options.

joni - the doc who saved dd2's life and looked after her in scbu was female. her orthotists have all been male. i can't find a feminist argument in there at all.

we have a choice of two paeds at the mo, both male. (although there is a female paed working in town whose books are full ) it probably says more about society than it does about the docs themselves...

dunno. we've never had to fight for funding tbh (and our orthopods have always been a circumspect bunch - not a whisper of surgery in sight). will have to sleep on it.

ah. found a tenuous link.

most plastic surgeons are men. that i can find a feminist argument with.

I think the US birth mortality rates probably have more to do with very poor antenatal care (or rather poor care for poor people). It's a system very heavily biased towards diagnostic and elective care and away from preventative treatment. But that's what happens when you have a highly monetarised healthcare system.

I've worked with many clinicians including doctors from many disciplines (I used to manage quality assurance). Surgeons have traditionally had the highest status and I'm fairly sure it's still quite a male dominated field, but I'm not sure that orthopedic surgeons are any different to any other group. The influx of women in medical school is likely to change that over time, although whether they will be attracted to the long hours and on call nature of surgery without a supportive 'wife' at home is I guess another matter.

madwomanintheattic. I think I've already said that my argument isn't based on who does what, rather how these particular areas of health are perceived and how we therefore value them.

Oh, and we've never had to 'fight for funding' as such. The help is there. It's just underfinded and imo undervalued.

i know. that's why i thought plastic surgery - it sems to be the definitive (not in terms of perception, that'd be rocky, but in terms of (private) funding etc)

the division of medical care along 'macho' (and therefore valued/ funded) lines is interesting, but has more to do with whatever is ground-breaking/ research worthy i think. pushing the barriers to save lives (and enhance the reputation of the pct/ get better kpi results/ improve statistics) is always going to get more funding than those things that aren't taken as a measure of success in business terms (ie longer term therapies/ provision of portage to children with developmental delays etc) - they aren't concrete enough to be valued in business terms.

it's the same thing that the adult with cp on the 23 week programme was hinting at i think (from what i've read on here - can't watch it as i'm o'seas) - the innovations to be able to resuscitate 23 weekers are what is valued for their potential, not just to save the lives of premature babies, but for the increases in knowledge that might be transferable to other areas of medicine. with the best will in the world, (and the general perception of people with disabilities in the uk) no-one is going to put that sort of money into ongoing support to improve gait. it's a travesty, i agree.

so i think we are agreeing, but on different terms. loosely it is to do with what is valued in a patriarchal society, but in reality it's more to do with slashed budgets and proof of scientific value and potential. (science being another topic i could waffle on about in loosely patriarchal/ sociological terms until i lose the will to live)

the problem with medicine is that it isn't terribly scientific at all, unless you are working in those areas that are pushing boundaries and attracting research funding... and the problem with science...

i'm not a huge fan of either tbh.

but it's interesting to ponder nhs funding. the disabled and the elderly are pretty much written off (they aren't much use to society anyway in gdp terms) so it's more what we do value as a society - youth, hard workers, strength, (all those things that men are and women aspire to ) apparently. so it's by default a societal issue, but not specifically a patriarchal one in the first instance.

i'm not making any sense at all, am i?