United States | News & Politics

The whole paragraph reads:

This was a massive blow to women’s ability to receive a form of personalized maternity care that many understaffed hospitals cannot provide due to the sheer volume of patients coming in for other ailments. Still, doctors have opposed the practice of midwifery on the grounds that a more Western, “scientific” approach is preferable. In practice this means relying on hospitals for birth and prioritizing quick pain relief over holistic care. It is also a profit-driven practice that is intended to save money for hospitals by shortening mothers’ stays and relying on medication instead of care staff.

Upon reread, I think they meant the use of medications over individualized holistic care is what shortens the stay. Not C-section.

I was allowed to refuse meds, I did refuse meds. Idk. I think that's what they meant in the article though, and I misunderstood what "It" was referring to in the paragraph.

But also, the obgyn isn't the same doctor working the ER. I can't speak to rural places, at all, so I don't know how it is, but it was my doctor who delivered my baby, the same doctor I had been seeing for years of obgyn stuff. It's not just some rando who's available in the hospital. I feel like this comes from an honest place, but the author might have exaggerated for slight effect. But I don't know how it is in other places. Hell, maybe they're popping babies out so fast in the mid-west with not enough doctors available, wouldn't shock me, I know hospitals are shutting down out there with cuts to medicare. Maybe it is like that out there.