There are at least two other relevant parties in each birth, neither of them being celebrities (and discounting the needs of obgyns and other parties that might benefit financially from a birth); these would be the baby and the father. The father has less at stake in the conditions of the birth than either of the other two; perhaps the baby has the most at stake. I'm hesitant to suggest that we need more formal judicial protections of the baby against the mother; it seems reasonable to presume that in most cases the mother has the baby's interests at heart, perhaps prioritizing them over her own. However, it is certainly not true that the only needs that should be considered are those of the mother.

At least not all of them. There is increasing (anecdotal) evidence of moms making decisions about their children that would seem to put the mothers convenience and comfort above the child's welfare.

One might think that murder, even when excused with post-partum depression, falls into this category pretty clearly. Abortion would be another solid instance. Heavy drinking and drug use while pregnant is pretty unambiguous, at least these days. ...

I was thinking more in terms about decisions about c sections, scheduled c sections, epidurals, etc. that seem to be based entirely on what mom wants and the question of what is best for the baby does not necessarily figure in.

maybe it is good for the baby, maybe it is neutral, maybe even better for baby, but as far as I can tell, that is not the driver in the discussion or decision making.

It's a little difficult to figure out beforehand what's in the best interest of the baby, if it's a question of birthing situation. After all, the absolute best for the baby would probably be a no-meds birth, but can you imagine a scenario where the wife is crying and asking for an epidural, and the husband sits there and says, "sorry I cannot allow that, it is not in the best interest of the baby." The nurse would probably kick him in the nuts and more power to her!

And what if the husband wants a homebirth for religious reasons but the wife is high risk and wants to go to the hospital? What if the husband decides he wants an abortion (for instance, he finds out the child is not his)? Giving the husband rights on a par with the mother's is alternatively laughable, or scary, depending on how likely it is. (and don't think it isn't likely in some cultures).

The woman holds the cards in birth, and that's the way it should be. It's her body and her risk.

I don't disagree that mom ought to be holding most of the cards vis a vis dad, but she ought to remember to consider the impact on his long term committment to her in calculating when to trump his hand with her ace.

I say "most" because a father ought to have some say in all this. The courts seem to think dads hold most of the financial responsibility for knocking mommy up, seems like a resonsiblility that ought to carry over then to birth and parenting decisions as well.

The other use of "most" applies to the baby. Indeed, the precautionary principle dictates that a med-free vaginal birth is likely best, save complications directly impacting the baby. So I believe that some mom's need exactly what you proposed in jest: incentive to tough it out a little longer before asking for the needle.

I won't propose how we are supposed to know when exactly that moment is, but I will say it seems we have gotten a little too generous with mom's and birth pain overall.

My wife, who obsesses about a stubbed toe or a runny nose like she is about to die of the plague, shined through two med-free deliveries like a champ that impressed even the midwives. I believe this is because she entered the process committed to doing it that way, for the baby's sake. She also expected me to remind her of that very goal when the chips were down.

I agree that its extremely difficult to know ahead of time what is best for the baby; and I would also say that the father is bound to consider the interests of the mother as well as those of the baby.

However, I don't think that the husband is without parental rights in determining the standard of care for the baby. So he needs to have a voice in the discussion of the birth method, so much as it is believed to impact the child. If he can also take the mother's well being into account, so much the better. Ideally, the baby and mother's well being would be aligned, but when they are in conflict, some serious choices have to be made, and it would be best if the father could be involved in attempting to maximize the good for both of them.

The real problems come in where the father and mother are somehow bearing animus, and the mother doesn't care for the child. I'm not sure how to make this one turn out well.

I'll make a deal with you. As soon as it becomes necessary for you to shove a mass the size of a Seville orange to the outside world through your penis, you'll be allowed to dictate whether or not a woman needs pain killers during labor. Until then, clear the decks and stay out of her way.

"As soon as it becomes necessary for you to shove a mass the size of a Seville orange to the outside world through your penis, you'll be allowed to dictate whether or not a woman needs pain killers during labor."

I've now officially been reading this thread way too long. What a hoot!

For one thing, we're not merely discussing pain killers. We're discussing a wide range of behaviors that may or may not benefit an infant. These include scheduled c-sections, induced labor, and at home birth.

I would expect that you would concur if I were to suggest that a father should want the mother to get good sleep and a healthy diet; perhaps even vitamin supplements. That a man should care nothing about these things would represent a complete lack of investment both in the woman and in the child. It would be heartless and inhuman of him - and also inhuman of any woman to want, expect, or demand a man (or any other person) to be heartless and inhuman.

Clearly, pain relief is a more complex topic. It represents something that might be good, or bad, or situationally good/bad. A man may or may not have the knowledge to know when it is good and bad. A woman might also lack that knowledge. The mere experience of the pain does not make her an immediate expert in its control. Too early administration of pain killers can prevent appropriate endorphin releases that can blunt further pain, possibly keeping later painkiller doses low.

There needs to be a balance in these matters such that individuals with a particular stake in the outcome of a birth have a say in the management of the process.

which confirms for me that the epidural advocacy has been overtaken by an entitlement mentality.

As soon as someone says that THEIR pain is so great and so special and so severe and so extreme that NO MAN has the insight, ability, right, or standing to even mention the issue on an annonymous bulletin board except to the extent that we are offering to push in the needle's plunger a little faster....

My bullshit detectors go off.

It's not about the baby anymore; it's about you.

If birth is so damned dangerous and painful and awful as we are told, how we managed to survive as a species for the thousands of generations before narcotics is a great mystery.

It's you that's presumtuous. Why is it that you feel you have both the right and the need to dictate what kind of medical intervention may be necessary in a process that you will never experience? Are you a physician? A midwife? No?

Birth can be dangerous. Women and children, even in the best hospitals in the world still die in the process. It happens. I've never heard any woman say that it's completely painless. I have known women who were in so much pain that they vomited with every contraction.

As for your contention that women managed for millennia with no painkillers therefore you feel free to deny them now, that's utter nonsense.

Tell ya what, in the past, when a tooth was rotten, it was pulled, sometimes in a barber or blacksmith's shop, with no anaesthetic. Next time you go to the dentist and need, say, a root canal, tell him or her that you won't be needing that shot because its "unnatural".

And lest you bi*** at me again that there's no comparison, suck it up. Imagine all of the times you've had to resort to pain meds or anaesthesia, imagine that they didn't exist. Still have your tonsils? Ever break a bone? Need stitches?

My authority in this question resides in my role as husband, father, partner, family member, and human being. As much as that pisses you of, I get a vote in this.

Having suffered major orthepeadic accidents and minor surgeries, I will tell you also that I am not a stranger to pain. And while the pain of a triple disc slip, various dislocations, broken bones and seperated shoulders is surely nothing even remotely like the uncomparable pain of birth for which there is no understanding for mere penises like me, it is pain none the less.

However minor and incomparable my teeny little penis person pains were compared to the incredible existential pain of delivery, for what it is worth, I practice the ethic of non medicine non narcotics in my own life too. I have jars and jars of valium and codene and vicadin and worse given to me routinely by robot docs, that I never opened. As a mater of fact, I refused novacain for routine filings well into my 30s when I needed a crown. I was not real popular with the dentists needless to say. I don't even take cold medicines. Except maybe two aspirin at bedtime.

And I wasn't even connected to a fetus when I made those choices.

At once you say that a person needs to experience something to be able to discuss it? And then how do so many doctors deal with the opposite gender?

I agree with you, actually, about general pain relief, and even about the need for interventions in many kinds of complicated and difficult births. On the other hand, I've been an EMT for a while (volunteer), and I know that many births are somewhat painful, but that they can be far from torture. They don't put epidurals on the ambulance for assisting in routine birth.

Anyway, my issue is not that all women need/don't need epidurals; or even that pain meds are the focus of the whole thing. The other frayster here seems to have something against pain meds in general - I'm less dogmatic. My issue is that fathers have a claim to concern and a voice in the treatment of their children. There shouldn't be one voice, screaming above all others, dictating the course of action. There are several voices, and these all should be concerned about the well being of everyone involved.

Sarvis:

for what it is worth, I practice the ethic of non medicine non narcotics in my own life too.

You practice this by your choice. How would you feel if the pain became so unbearable and you were asking your doctor or surgeon for pain meds and howling in pain and someone else was sitting there and saying "eh, he isn't hurting bad enough yet, let's do this all natural".