Birthing mother abused for refusing male nurse

[sakura184]

This kind of crap is why I opted for homebirths

pjmedia.com/parenting/colorado-doula-and-assault-survivor-investigated-by-dhs-for-refusing-male-nurse-during-birth/

@stucknoue

That's fine stucknoe. Obviously I'd prefer all female units where the people treating you in an emergency situation were women, if this is what a birthing woman prefers.

But people are adamant other things (anything?) is more important than channeling resources into something like women-led units

And this is not to you but to others on the thread. I've said repeatedly, that yes, the male midwife raised some issues but from now on when I discuss those issues I'm not referring specifically to him but about men in general

My fight is for women to have female-only care when they need it - that is it. I wouldn't want a single incident of a woman being told "we've only got John on duty, who is free tonight - so...." and for a woman to feel pressured into having a male midwife.

Absolutely.

It's a very personal thing.

In terms of sexism, I think on a professional level there is a lot of tribalness between the RCM and the RCOG for example, which really doesn't help.

There's been cases where this tribalism has been catastrophic because each discipline has its own way of doing things which has led to a total breakdown in communication. (I think if memory serves it was a factor at Morecambe Bay but I'm not 100% it was this case). Into this dynamic you have a man walk into it as a midwife and I think it rather upsets the applecart. Traditionally males as consultants have often been framed as the enemy because of the different cultures within the disciplines and because of their higher social and professional status. Rather than necessarily maleness as such (though I definitely think a likely factor)

It's like a man who becomes a male nurse rather than a doctor. Why would a man actively chose that rather than the higher career of being a doctor? A lot of people just can't cope with the idea, rather than thinking about whether they are any good or capable of caring in the same way as a woman (even to treat male patients)

And this is where I think toxic masculity comes in. A doctor has access to patients but isn't questioned in motive in the same way as a male nurse would be. And it's amplified because of the particular field of care it is, and the often intimate nature of Midwifery.

People often make the point about how a woman can sympathise more because she's a woman. But I think this argument only runs so far and can run counter to it too. There's women without children who don't understand certain aspects of birth and women with an attitude that 'if I've done it, you can bloody well just get on with it like me'. There's a real 'rites of passage' ideology from some quarters which is particularly nasty and unsympathetic. And into that comes a man who isnt part of this mentality and always will be something of an outsider.

I don't care if women do, but obv wanting a woman is a different category of choice than that of women who prefer men, any men, not merely specific doctors, to carry out intimate procedures on them.
I'm not saying women can't have men , I'm just not sure it's a legitimate choice in the same way that wanting a woman is a legitimate choice because of the sheer amount of perpetrators and sexual predators being men, which we have stats on.

This. It's not the same thing.

People often make the point about how a woman can sympathise more because she's a woman. But I think this argument only runs so far and can run counter to it too. There's women without children who don't understand certain aspects of birth and women with an attitude that 'if I've done it, you can bloody well just get on with it like me'. There's a real 'rites of passage' ideology from some quarters which is particularly nasty and unsympathetic. And into that comes a man who isnt part of this mentality and always will be something of an outsider.

Yes I think that's a good point.

But I also think plenty of men, midwives or not, don't have much empathy for women either.

True, RTB.

Perhaps if there was a better culture of care from the top, in maternity care, and less "them and us" going on - it would be better for the birthing women.

I do think there is a fair amount of misogyny in the medical profession- I've experience it myself - and a fair bit of dismissing patient's rights to autonomy, decision-making, consultation and consent. Particularly true for female patients, who seem to be dismissed more readily. Like you said - your DH could not believe your treatment by doctors.

Combine that with the added culture clashes/ male-female domains evident in medicine - and the result seems to be a lot of women unhappy and even traumatised by their birth experience.

@Ereshkigal

This. It's not the same thing.

Yes thanks for backing @Maniak's suggestion that it's not the same. I don't. think it's the same thing either.
Is insisting on a man, rather than insisting on a different midwife that you might get along with better, more of a preference than a right to dignity?

RTB - your posts are fantastic and balanced.
The OP does herself no favours by backtracking and saying 'in general'. There is no 'in general'.
We all have different preferences with a birth plan these will hopefully be met. In an emergency they won't be.
The idea that all men in caring professions (or even most or some) are there for the wrong reasons is regressive bullshit quite frankly.
Before this thread I have never seen 'rapey' as a synonym for rape culture. It is a dismissive term used by kids in school for something that's a bit off. It is not a word I would accept in discussion in my A Level lit classes looking at Feminist Theory.

Goosefoot, it's the law - quite simply, medical staff cannot force human beings with capacity to undergo medical treatment against their will.

As several people have pointed out, this is not clear-cut in the way that you seem to think.

I've been in a situation where HCPs did not take my medical desires seriously and refused. It sucks.

But consent in an emergency or emergent situation is not always a clear-cut thing. Especially if there seems to be reason to think the patient is unable to make a rational decision, because of fear or anxiety.

A doctor could face really serious legal and professional consequences for not acting in that situation, if things went badly. Removed from practice, even prison if it went that far.

Did the woman in that article really appreciate that if she refused a male carer, she might well have no help, and that could result in extremely serious consequences? I am not convinced she did, she seemed to have very little understanding of most of the decisions she was making, including the consequences of not seeking pre-natal care. She was stuck in magical thinking that somehow if things were just done as she wanted, everything would be fine, and still seems to believe it for that matter.

There are good reasons that consent in situations like that is not considered black and white. People come into ERs all the time needing care butt saying they don't want it, because they are in the middle of a trauma.

The thing for me, and it's a visceral thing - from the womb, as it were - is that I didn't men present when I gave birth - except DH, who was there both for me and to experience the birth of our children.

I ended up having male HCPs there with me, stitching me, seeing me poo - it added to the undignified reality of childbirth, the self-consciousness. It just made it worse. You can tell me they've seen it all before till the cows come home - I didn't want men there.

That's why I've argued so vociferously for a woman's choice for female care in childbirth - because I didn't get it. And I feel women's spaces are - in all areas - being eroded. I don't want women's rights eroded in this way - in the name of equality, or staff shortages, or whatever.

Goosefoot, a person's lawful right to refuse medical care is the bottom line for me. I'll attach the GMC screenshot again, for reference of where the law stands on this issue.

I just get treated arrogantly by men all the damn time, in my daily life. For me it's just this arrogance that I've come to expect that I just don't want to have to deal with in labor.

This would be my personal reasons for wanting women around me in birth.

Even if the man has pure motives for entering the profession it's this damned gendered arrogance I can't abide. Remember folks this is my experience only and I'm in no way insisting this experience is universal

Just an example. I met a group of friends at the pub where I met a friend's husband for the first time. Had a bit of a chat. I've lived in Japan for 15 years. He knows someone who lives there. He proceeded to correct me on Japan based topics.

Unlike earlier. When you implied anyone who differed was a freak.

Goosefoot, a person's lawful right to refuse medical care is the bottom line for me. I'll attach the GMC screenshot again, for reference of where the law stands on this issue

So, a screenshot of a tiny sentence doesn't really do justice to something like this. It just doesn't. That's not how medical care works. There are all kinds of protocols and requirements that go well beyond that, and would be factors if it ended up in court.

If some lady dies in the ER in a situation like this, and it ends up in court, the judge is not only going to care if she said no. Doctors are required to care and pay attention to this.

It doesn't really matter if you think it should change, what you are suggesting isn't the whole of the legal situation.

I've lived in Japan for 15 years. He knows someone who lives there. He proceeded to correct me on Japan based topics.

Ha! Typical.

We need to fight for women's autonomy and informed consent in childbirth. It's very possible things will get worse in the NHS. Probable even. Staff shortages, more cuts, ward closures etc. We have to make sure womens hard-won rights are not thrown out due to austerity measures in the NHS. Women have rights.

It's the law, goosefoot. It's not a tiny screenshot - it's the GMC legal guidance.

RTB - your posts are fantastic and balanced.

I agree, I don't have much to add to them but they're great posts.
I've disagreed quite a bit lot in the past with some things RTB has said, but not on this thread.
Very measured and reasoned.

Unlike earlier. When you implied anyone who differed was a freak

Exactly. "Handmaidens, utter betrayal."
That was it, no?
I mean WTF, it's amazing the chip chop changing to the audience.

@ZebrasAreBras

I'm really concerned things will keep getting worse for women. They're making it impossible for us to say no to them in a variety of situations.

I'm just following the JY thread, the one who has taken a woman to court because she refused to wax his balls -- and this is a human rights issue, for him you understand, his human right to get his balls waxed, not a human rights issue for her to refuse someone she perceives as unsafe in her home

For sure men will use claims of sexism and transphobia to insist women accept them as HCPs . It is not enough for a woman to state she wants a woman to help her birth, clearly from this thread we have seen that she must go to great lengths to justify herself

the judge is not only going to care if she said no.

The judge will need to know whether she consented to medical treatment, or not, and whether she was capable of making that decision.

Medical treatment requires a capable patient's consent by law.

Yes, sakura, the JY case shows just how bad things have become for women in Canada, and it only takes the passing of a few "anti-discrimination" laws to get there.

I'm waiting with baited breath to see if the law courts in Canada say it is unlawful discrimination for a woman to say "no" to waxing male genitals

Yes thanks for backing @Maniak's suggestion that it's not the same. I don't. think it's the same thing either.
Is insisting on a man, rather than insisting on a different midwife that you might get along with better, more of a preference than a right to dignity?

I think it's either a preference or in the case of PTSD from a specific trigger. In which case people need to be able to refuse care from people with any characteristics whatsoever.

Insisting on a same sex practitioner without any other specifics is a matter of dignity.

I'm really concerned things will keep getting worse for women. They're making it impossible for us to say no to them in a variety of situations.

I agree.

I had reasons for refusing scans during my pregnancy. I had a homebirth midwife but she insisted I see a doctor intermittently during my pregnancy. He was fine with me not having scans but insisted on one at 35 weeks to check the amniotic fluid, whereby he discovered that the baby would be very big.
I told the midwife and she felt my womb and said no the scan is wrong the baby is actually small to average.
The midwife turned out to be right, and the scan turned out to be wrong.
The only explanation I can think of is that DDs legs are very long in proportion to her body and the leg bone is measured to predict size.
I've heard a lot about the days where doctors would give you a scan and predict whether you could birth your baby based on the size of your pelvis. And insist on a c section if he thought the baby wouldn't come out.
I give an atheist prayer to the fact that I escaped that fate due to the wonderful technology just being basically inadequate , and to the fact times have hopefully changed

And then, could it be "unlawful" to refuse to have your smear test by a male practitioner - because he's identifies as a woman? Does our right to request a female HCP mean we have no right to refuse anyone who self-IDs as a woman?

Serious impacts on women's healthcare and consent right there, with just the changes in the GRA that were planned.