Aug 07 2008
Fascism Hitting You at….Home
State Policy Network | Blog
“How can people believe they are free when something as intimate as childbirth is so heavily controlled by the corporate state?” Gregory asks. “Of course, we need freedom for families to make their choice among hospitals and home birth options. For a case for home birth, and against the establishment that embraces a program of processing women in labor as fast as it can through the systematic reliance on the pitocin-epidural-cesarean process, see the great documentary, The Business of Being Born.“The artificial process of bringing on contractions, then giving pain relief, then bringing on more contractions, then resorting to cesareans when things don’t go as smoothly and quickly as desired, reminds me of the spiral of interventionism Mises described,” Gregory adds.
Another example of the nanny state and corporate welfare. Don’t let people do anything they want to if you can find another, more expensive, more highly regulated way.
My friends who have had home births (as have we) should know that the laws are in part guided by medical professionals who lobby for stricter regulations in order to protect their market share.
I am not convinced. This “corporate controlled childbirth Conspiracy” sounds an awful lot like the nonsense being said about vaccinations.
Are there statistics that show which is safer, either way? If you want to convince me, show me numbers.
And I’m waiting for Knight in Dragonland to weigh in.
Don’t know if he will–I’m off the beaten path.
The issue is–who gets to decide which is safer. It’s not about statistics, it’s about personal liberty. A bunch of men in DC or Springfield, most of whom are lawyers, deciding for my family what is safe and what isn’t?
The Bill of Rights was intended (doesn’t anymore mind you) to protect the liberty of the people of the United States. Including the liberty to do foolish things (like smoke or drive around without a seat belt). Even if (and my own choices for our family show you I don’t believe this to be true) a home birth is inherently less safe than a hospital birth, it’s not their job to prohibit it. It’s their job to protect the rights of citizens to choose how they want to practice health.
But as in all things, those who are in control of a market can often get the law to protect their ability to retain that control, if they can convince the lawmakers to work with them.
I can’t recommend that you read Bastiat highly enough, Billy. I’ve got a copy I can loan you or you can get a free pdf from fee.org.
You can start with wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_birth
For low risk pregnancies the outcomes are pretty simiar. Why should pregnant women have to convince you (in the plural sense) that it is a good idea? At the end of the day you have to trust women to make choices that are best for them. There are plenty of things people do that I think are crazy, but that doesn’t mean they should be illegal. Different strokes for different folks.
I’m not sure that I really see the point in weighing in, Billy, since I’m just a corrupt cog in the machine “protecting my market share” … not a physician dedicated to his oath to first do no harm, trying to ensure the safest environment for both mother and child.
Ah, but then we’ve been around on other issues where you believe the state “knows best,” Knight, both me and CJ.
We come at this from different directions. Me from the point that the founders expected us to have liberty, and you from the point that the state is a big nanny that is intended to protect everyone from their own decisions, at the risk of whatever liberty necessary.
We have had two very safe home births, and allowing parents to choose what medical care they think best (or any other citizen for that matter) is a function of a free society. But you don’t think most people are smart enough to do that, do you?