Words: Fleur Kas (she/her)
birth is not a pure process: it is painful, respiratory, and contested. Mothers should have the right to choose whichever method of delivery suits their bodies best, in consultation with unbiased medical professionals.
“Yet thou art He who took me from the womb;
Thou didst keep me safe upon my mother’s breasts.” – Psalm 22:9.
The Bible verse above describes God delivering a baby from the womb, a divine intervention seen in Christianity. Think of Mary’s virgin birth: rather than through penetrative sex, Jesus was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit. However, medical interventions in birth have historically been deemed “unnatural.” In Scotland, midwives were accused of witchcraft for centuries, with approximately 4,000 midwives, nurses, and healers being questioned between 1563 and 1736 following the Scottish Reformation. The reason? They placed circlets around women’s abdomens as protective girdles during childbirth, which was associated with Catholicism and deemed ungodly. If divine intervention is considered beautiful and “pure”, why does medical intervention in birth continue to be stigmatised today?
The rise of “tradwife” content on the internet has undoubtedly contributed to this: Hannah Neeleman, the face of Ballerina Farm, has boasted about giving birth to seven children without pain relief. Nevertheless, in an interview with The Times, she confessed that she had an epidural for her daughter Martha’s birth in the absence of her husband, which she described as ‘an amazing experience.’ So, why do the benefits of medical intervention remain largely undiscussed in the discourse surrounding childbirth?
Vaginal delivery continues to be the most popular method of giving birth, with approximately 44% of babies in England being born this way. However, a third of mothers will need some form of assisted vaginal delivery during their first time giving birth, accounting for 10% of childbirths in total. Common methods include a ventouse (a vacuum cup suctioned to the baby’s head), forceps (a curved instrument that fits onto the baby’s head), or both. Most babies will not have any healthcare complications as a result, though mothers may experience bleeding or vaginal tears as a result.
Alternative forms of medical intervention include epidurals and cesarean sections. An epidural is an anaesthetic pain blocker which is injected near the mother’s spine during childbirth: research from the University of Glasgow has found that its use can reduce maternal morbidity by 35%. As for C-sections, this method requires a cut to be made across the stomach and womb: it is effective if done safely, but does have more associated risks such as womb infections, blood clots, and excessive bleeding. Nevertheless, approximately 45% of babies in the UK are delivered this way, the majority of which are successful procedures.
Beyond medical intervention, the obstetrical dilemma hypothesis is important to consider. Theorised in 1960 by Sherwood Larned Washburn, this hypothesis claims that humans have greater difficulty giving birth than other primates due to a relatively smaller birth canal and pelvic dimensions, as well as having bipedal energetics (simply meaning we walk on two feet rather than four). The solution? Washburn controversially suggested humans ought to give birth prematurely, which carries far greater risks than medical intervention for mother and child, such as breathing and heart problems. The hypothesis has since been challenged, with alternative explanations including ecological factors such as nutrition, as well as variability in pelvic shape: older women tend to have larger dimensions than women in their “prime” reproductive age. Further research is thus necessary to draw conclusions, but we can start by listening to a mother’s wants and needs to make the process easier.
Attitudes towards childbirth are dependent on culture, too. For instance, in 2024, there were protests in South Korea against the Health Ministry’s decision to forbid the simultaneous use of epidurals and PainBuster anaesthetics during birth, which is especially concerning in a country where C-sections are the preferred method of delivery. However, a denial of medical intervention also happens in the UK: in an interview with The Guardian, a mother called Kate went through a 26-hour labour yet was denied an epidural. This is part of a larger “cult” of natural childbirth in certain NHS trusts, despite the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence having clear guidelines about administering epidurals. However, the UK also has a shortage of midwives, and anaesthetists are often unavailable during labour, making the issue a complex combination of healthcare deficiencies and cultural stigma.
That being said, birth is not a pure process: it is painful, respiratory, and contested. Mothers should have the right to choose whichever method of delivery suits their bodies best, in consultation with unbiased medical professionals. However, in societies which are still poisoned by the myth of “natural” birth, work is still required to overcome this. A good starting point would be through education about medical intervention rather than disinformation against it, making knowledge about the different forms it can take more accessible. Let women and people with vaginas make the decision they need to: it’s not your child to raise!
