Abstract
Brazil is the second country with the highest rate of cesarean sections in the world. Most of these procedures are without medical reasons, representing risks for the mother and baby. Obstetric doctors are appointed as the main responsible for this index. The reasons given are for financial reasons or for the convenience of predictable and planned births, and in these cases, cesarean sections are performed without sufficient clarification to pregnant women about their risks and their real need. In this context, there is a constant conflict between doctors and social movement activists in favor of the humanization of childbirth. The purpose of this paper is to analyze from an anthropological point of view the arguments that doctors use to defend themselves against these accusations. Through participant observation at scientific events and meetings of representatives of medical entities, it was found that obstetricians argue that they are based on “medical evidence” and accuse humanized childbirth activists of being based on “ideology”. These arguments reflect the current political context in Brazil marked by intolerance and the advance of neoconservatism.
Highlights
This study is anchored in the field of Anthropology of Biomedicine, which addresses an area of anthropological investigation focused on the influence of sociocultural aspects in the biomedical theories and practices
Studies in unusual fields like Bruno Latour and Steve Woolgar’s [3] in laboratory helped to put under perspective the production of scientific facts as topics of investigation in the social sciences. In this line of reasoning, diagnostic and therapeutic interventions bring to the light political, economic and commercial issues in their ethical, clinical and philosophical dimensions. Such questions have lived up debates in Sociology of Science and Anthropology of Biomedicine with questionings like: What are the meanings and effects of these interventions on intimacy? How is the health/illness process
Current Topics in Caesarean Section reconfigured in the daily life of the individuals in face of such interventions? How do health professionals remodel their practices and their relations with sick individuals in front of these new technological and scientific resources? Which is the accessibility and the ethical and cultural consequences of the intense development of these scientific technologies for the societies and the individuals? From the point of view of the Foucauldian notions of biopolitics and biopower, the debates show that the biotechnologies constantly use hegemony, inequality, and subordination to create social consumption in order to control both individuals and collectives. It is with this view that this study approaches the positioning of entities representing the physicians of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil on the excessive number of cesarean sections in the country, in counterpoint to the position of activists for humanized childbirth
Summary
This study is anchored in the field of Anthropology of Biomedicine, which addresses an area of anthropological investigation focused on the influence of sociocultural aspects in the biomedical theories and practices. From the point of view of the Foucauldian notions of biopolitics and biopower, the debates show that the biotechnologies constantly use hegemony, inequality, and subordination to create social consumption in order to control both individuals and collectives It is with this view that this study approaches the positioning of entities representing the physicians of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil on the excessive number of cesarean sections in the country, in counterpoint to the position of activists for humanized childbirth. Others point to the preference of physicians for carrying through procedures in schedules and days marked according to their own comfort [8, 9] These arguments have been used by the feminist activists for humanized childbirth to accuse the doctors of carrying through an excessive medicalization of labor in which the cesarean is the major representative. It is worth highlighting that the current president consistently emphasizes that this is the first non-partisan” and “non-ideological” management “of CREMERJ, in a clear reference to previous boards that “showed a trend to the left”
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
