Argh.
According to a new study in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, the 'lives' of 200 fetuses could be saved each year if pregnant women were only responsible enough to buckle up.
"Even if a fetus survives, premature delivery as a result of the crash can lead to low birth weight, respiratory problems and long-term physical or neurological problems, the authors said".
I find this very odd. Not necessarily that being in a car crash can cause fetal death, but that the authors consistently refer to a fetus as a 'fetus' and not a 'baby'. This is why. Given that the authors do not make any specifications as to how 'old' a fetus has to be in order to sustain injury or death, I would assume that if a pregnant woman was worried about harming her fetus chances are she would buckle her seat belt because she didn't want to harm her 'baby'. If the woman is worried about endangering another 'life', she is thinking about the 'life' growing inside of her as a 'baby'.
I have made a similar argument surrounding miscarriage; the reason why women are often so traumatised by this experience is because they are clearly attached to the pregnancy. A miscarriage is not just a loss of blood and tissue, it feels like the loss of a 'life'. Therefore, in the case of this seatbelt study, it seems odd to call a pregnancy a 'fetus' considering the whole point of the study is to make women more responsible for their unborn. Therefore, women need to be thinking about their fetuses as 'babies' because 'babies' are 'individuals' whereas fetuses (or at least I found in my research) are clinical and alien that are not characterised by anything that is necessarily 'human'.
Finally, shouldn't women be wearing seatbelts so they don't kill themselves in a car accident? What good will it be to have a living fetus if it has no mother?
That was my philosophy for the morning.
Source: http://health.usnews.com/usnews/health/healthday/080402/seat-belt-use-by-pregnant-women-could-save-200-fetuses-a-year.htm
Showing posts with label fetus. Show all posts
Showing posts with label fetus. Show all posts
South Dakota sonogram harassment
The South Dakota House and Senate recently passed a bill requiring doctors to offer pregnant women sonograms before they decide to have an abortion. If the woman refuses to 'see' her 'baby', she must sign a form indicating she has been offered the technology.
According to a number of conservative male legislators, the use of the ultrasound in this particular encounter is supposed to encourage women to keep their fetuses because 'seeing' a fetus as a 'baby' and 'not just a blob of tissue' will clearly overwhelm women who are ambivalent about motherhood with maternal feelings.
One female senator has called this 'harassment', and rightly so.
Isn't it interesting that pregnancy can be received so differently just on the basis of whether the pregnancy is wanted or not? For women who want to be pregnant, a little 'blob of tissue' on a screen is a 'baby'. For women who have found themselves uncomfortably pregnant, that same blob of tissue might be perceived as an alien or even a parasite. With regard to the fetus, as a number of feminist scholars have suggested in light of the abortion debate, the increasing use of sophisticated imaging technology is dangerous precisely because of what is happening in South Dakota. Personhood, as in many 'non-Western' cultures is not conferred upon birth when a child is welcomed into a community. Rather, personhood is conferred upon 'seeing' a fetus as early as 4 weeks in some cases simply because we have the technology to do so. As such, the mother's identity/personhood is eclipsed in favour of the fetus and her body is perceived as merely a receptacle for life, without regard for her own.
Source: http://www.rapidcityjournal.com/articles/2008/01/29/news/top/doc479f941307871396515177.txt
According to a number of conservative male legislators, the use of the ultrasound in this particular encounter is supposed to encourage women to keep their fetuses because 'seeing' a fetus as a 'baby' and 'not just a blob of tissue' will clearly overwhelm women who are ambivalent about motherhood with maternal feelings.
One female senator has called this 'harassment', and rightly so.
Isn't it interesting that pregnancy can be received so differently just on the basis of whether the pregnancy is wanted or not? For women who want to be pregnant, a little 'blob of tissue' on a screen is a 'baby'. For women who have found themselves uncomfortably pregnant, that same blob of tissue might be perceived as an alien or even a parasite. With regard to the fetus, as a number of feminist scholars have suggested in light of the abortion debate, the increasing use of sophisticated imaging technology is dangerous precisely because of what is happening in South Dakota. Personhood, as in many 'non-Western' cultures is not conferred upon birth when a child is welcomed into a community. Rather, personhood is conferred upon 'seeing' a fetus as early as 4 weeks in some cases simply because we have the technology to do so. As such, the mother's identity/personhood is eclipsed in favour of the fetus and her body is perceived as merely a receptacle for life, without regard for her own.
Source: http://www.rapidcityjournal.com/articles/2008/01/29/news/top/doc479f941307871396515177.txt
Alcohol in pregnancy: the saga continues
I finally feel vindicated in all my posts about risk culture and alcohol during pregnancy. According to the Sydney Morning Herald, medical experts are in a furore over the latest recommendations that pregnant women abstain from drinking completely during pregnancy. The 'zero tolerance' policy, as it has come to be known in other countries, has caused quite a bit of unrest among pregnant women who are scared to death that their babies will be damaged for life after consuming one drink.
I probably shouldn't say 'I told you so'..but...I TOLD YOU SO.
The president of the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, Christine Tippett, says:
"Specialists practising in obstetrics and gynaecology in Canada have had requests from women to terminate their pregnancy because they're concerned they may have harmed their foetuses through alcohol exposure early in their pregnancy."
How ridiculous is this? Why is it that doctors are surprised that women are so freaked out in light of all of these 'rules' about alcohol they think that one drink is going to cause fetal alcohol syndrome?
I think it's great to encourage women to have healthy pregnancies; I think it's paternalistic and just wrong to monitor pregnant women so closely and scare them so much that they do not feel responsible enough or too guilty to continue with a pregnancy because they've had a few drinks.
Dr. Tippett continues:
"It's extremely unlikely that a small amount of alcohol or a single case of binge drinking is going to be harmful to the foetus … We need to establish what is a safe level rather than saying you shouldn't drink at all, because that does engender a great deal of anxiety."
Some of the women in my study were so distressed about drinking, especially early in pregnancy (when many of them did not actually know they were pregnant), they went into hyper-vigilance mode when it came to food, drink and exercise for the rest of the pregnancy because they felt so guilty about drinking in the first few weeks. New British research has revealed that binge drinking (more than 5 drinks) is actually NOT consistently harmful to fetuses.
"When pregnant women report isolated episodes of binge drinking in the absence of a consistently high daily alcohol intake ... the evidence of risk seems minimal," the researchers wrote in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, published today.
This may be a comfort to women who drank early on in pregnancy without knowing they were pregnant but only highlights the absolute inconsistency in research findings on this topic. If one group of doctors is telling women not to drink at all, others say no more than one drink per day, and then another group says an occasional binge is okay, what are women to do?
Pregnancy is hard enough as it is...perhaps more research should be done before women stop having babies altogether because they are too afraid to breathe, or walk outside, or come into contact with cheese or be in the presence of alcohol, lest they harm their unborn.
What do you think?
Sources: http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/zerotolerance-alcohol-code-may-cause-panic/2007/11/14/1194766770310.html
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/boozings-minimal-baby-harm/2007/11/14/1194766733789.html
I probably shouldn't say 'I told you so'..but...I TOLD YOU SO.
The president of the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, Christine Tippett, says:
"Specialists practising in obstetrics and gynaecology in Canada have had requests from women to terminate their pregnancy because they're concerned they may have harmed their foetuses through alcohol exposure early in their pregnancy."
How ridiculous is this? Why is it that doctors are surprised that women are so freaked out in light of all of these 'rules' about alcohol they think that one drink is going to cause fetal alcohol syndrome?
I think it's great to encourage women to have healthy pregnancies; I think it's paternalistic and just wrong to monitor pregnant women so closely and scare them so much that they do not feel responsible enough or too guilty to continue with a pregnancy because they've had a few drinks.
Dr. Tippett continues:
"It's extremely unlikely that a small amount of alcohol or a single case of binge drinking is going to be harmful to the foetus … We need to establish what is a safe level rather than saying you shouldn't drink at all, because that does engender a great deal of anxiety."
Some of the women in my study were so distressed about drinking, especially early in pregnancy (when many of them did not actually know they were pregnant), they went into hyper-vigilance mode when it came to food, drink and exercise for the rest of the pregnancy because they felt so guilty about drinking in the first few weeks. New British research has revealed that binge drinking (more than 5 drinks) is actually NOT consistently harmful to fetuses.
"When pregnant women report isolated episodes of binge drinking in the absence of a consistently high daily alcohol intake ... the evidence of risk seems minimal," the researchers wrote in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, published today.
This may be a comfort to women who drank early on in pregnancy without knowing they were pregnant but only highlights the absolute inconsistency in research findings on this topic. If one group of doctors is telling women not to drink at all, others say no more than one drink per day, and then another group says an occasional binge is okay, what are women to do?
Pregnancy is hard enough as it is...perhaps more research should be done before women stop having babies altogether because they are too afraid to breathe, or walk outside, or come into contact with cheese or be in the presence of alcohol, lest they harm their unborn.
What do you think?
Sources: http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/zerotolerance-alcohol-code-may-cause-panic/2007/11/14/1194766770310.html
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/boozings-minimal-baby-harm/2007/11/14/1194766733789.html
4D ultrasounds: fetus v. mother
If 4D ultrasounds are your thing, you will be amazed by Phillips new 'Presentation Bump' 4D ultrasound integrated scanning 'belt' which was introduced to the world this week in London from their Simplicity Concept Collection. This new technology is presented under the 'Celebrating Pregnancy' concept as a way of making ultrasound experiences less clinical and more 'playful'.According to Phillips, this new ultrasound would take place in 'The Pregnancy Room' with ambient lighting for optimatl 'fetal viewing'. Expectant parents would be shown a series of images on a 'tummy-shaped wall' to demonstrate how the fetus has grown and ending with the current scan. Parents then have access to 'The Bebescope', a wireless portable device onto which the regular scans, including the baby’s heartbeat, are uploaded so that they can be reviewed at home. By imitating the imaging specialist’s hand movements on the Presentation Bump, parents use the Bebescope to move backwards or forwards in time to view a recording of their baby’s growth, or simply rotate their ‘virtual’ baby in any direction for the view of their choice.
I find the idea of scanning yourself at home a little too 'Brave New World' and this invites a whole host of problematic disjunctures medically and culturally between mothers and fetuses. A fantastic tool for bonding, clearly, but in the long run, I think it is hard enough for women to negotiate pregnancy in cultures that constantly implore that the fetus is the more important subject. Now that fetuses are becoming 'babies' earlier and earlier in pregnancy, the idea that women will be 'playing' with their 'virtual baby' from the outset, makes my skin crawl. When did pregnancy become a game? The safety of multiple ultrasound scans in pregnancy is still unclear, women scanning themselves or having multiple scans is highly unethical and threatens women's autonomy.
Source: http://www.newscenter.philips.com/about/news/press/20071023_simplicity_concept_collection.page
http://www.engadget.com/2007/10/23/philips-shows-off-health-and-wellness-concepts-at-simplicity-eve/
Pregnancy stripped bare with Damien Hirst's 'Virgin Mother'
Controversial visual artist, Damien Hirst has done it again. With his latest installation in Lever House in New York and another virgin..er I mean...version standing tall at the entrance of the garden at Chatsworth for the 'Beyond Limits' exhibition, 'The Virgin Mother' is turning out to be one of Hirst's most confronting and some would even say 'grotesque' visions of pregnancy. Inspired by Degas' 'Little Dancer', the exposure of bones, muscle tissue and a fully grown fetus captured inside a very pregnant body, leaves me with mixed reactions.I hesitate to call this a pregnant 'woman' because the exposure of this body, stripped of its skin and visualised is not a 'woman'. This 'woman' is completely disembodied strangely reminiscent of the ways in which reproductive technology has opened up the once hidden recesses of a woman's uterus for biomedicine. Whereas pregnancy was only evident through quickening and known only to the woman herself, today we live in a world that is endlessly visualisable. Fetuses can be 'seen' only a few weeks into a pregnancy and treated surgically inside the womb before they are even born. This sculpture is confronting to say the least and a significant challenge to the fantasy world of celebrity pregnancy where the pregnant body is treated as a sexual object. Here, Hirst strongly connects with early anatomical visions of the pregnant body, most of which represented only a torso and exposed uterus, with no reference to the woman herself.
Curious title. Quite obviously there are religious undertones here. Perhaps a reference to increasing technologising/bioengineering of 'life'. Is IVF is the new immaculate conception?
Mums who eat junk food give birth to overeaters.
I love science. Seriously, since when did it become okay to test out theories on rats and then apply them to human beings? According to the Vancouver Sun:
"Children whose mothers eat junk food during pregnancy and breastfeeding are more likely to overeat, choose an unhealthy diet and grow obese later in life, according to research using rats published on Wednesday."
Right. Apparently the appetite mechanisms in rats and human beings are similar so this new research has shown that baby rats get a taste for unhealthy foods when they are born and therefore, fetuses should develop the same unhealthy taste for junk.
Why is it that women and their eating habits in pregnancy continue to be constant sources of moral panic and shaming. In my own research, I've found that pregnant women struggle with food in a way they've never had to before in terms of feeding themselves and feeding their fetuses almost as if they were competing interests. Compounded by all the 'rules' of eating in pregnancy, scaring pregnant women into thinking that if they have a few donuts somehow their babies are going to be overeaters for life makes me really angry.
My mum lived on Baby Ruth bars (it's an American thing) for 40 weeks and a sugar addict I am not.
Source: http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=5fed1943-835b-4b84-97bf-c89b8134bb09&k=81306
Also thanks to Claire from Inside Beauty who so nicely linked to this blog to promote healthy fashion/body/beauty awareness. Check them out http://5resolutions.blogspot.com/
"Children whose mothers eat junk food during pregnancy and breastfeeding are more likely to overeat, choose an unhealthy diet and grow obese later in life, according to research using rats published on Wednesday."
Right. Apparently the appetite mechanisms in rats and human beings are similar so this new research has shown that baby rats get a taste for unhealthy foods when they are born and therefore, fetuses should develop the same unhealthy taste for junk.
Why is it that women and their eating habits in pregnancy continue to be constant sources of moral panic and shaming. In my own research, I've found that pregnant women struggle with food in a way they've never had to before in terms of feeding themselves and feeding their fetuses almost as if they were competing interests. Compounded by all the 'rules' of eating in pregnancy, scaring pregnant women into thinking that if they have a few donuts somehow their babies are going to be overeaters for life makes me really angry.
My mum lived on Baby Ruth bars (it's an American thing) for 40 weeks and a sugar addict I am not.
Source: http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=5fed1943-835b-4b84-97bf-c89b8134bb09&k=81306
Also thanks to Claire from Inside Beauty who so nicely linked to this blog to promote healthy fashion/body/beauty awareness. Check them out http://5resolutions.blogspot.com/
Bump to Baby
Check out my article 'From Bump to Baby: Gazing at the fetus in 4D' in the latest edition of Philament, the arts and humanities journal from the University of Sydney:
http://www.arts.usyd.edu.au/publications/philament/issue10_contents.htm
http://www.arts.usyd.edu.au/publications/philament/issue10_contents.htm
pregtastic podcasts and 3D fetuses
I just found this handy website for those of you who are down with pod-casting about all things pregnancy:
'A website and weekly podcast series by and for pregnant women. It's casual, informative and fun! Our weekly guests include, Lactation Specialists, Doulas, Pre and Postnatal Fitness Experts, Pediatricians, Massage Therapists, Family Financial Counselors'
Check it out here: www.pregtastic.com
Also, read this: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=68902
Parents can watch their developing fetus using 3D glasses! Watch the video below:
'A website and weekly podcast series by and for pregnant women. It's casual, informative and fun! Our weekly guests include, Lactation Specialists, Doulas, Pre and Postnatal Fitness Experts, Pediatricians, Massage Therapists, Family Financial Counselors'
Check it out here: www.pregtastic.com
Also, read this: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=68902
Parents can watch their developing fetus using 3D glasses! Watch the video below:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)