9 Nov 2007, Comments Off on Selfish ber-loody women at it again

Selfish ber-loody women at it again

Author: Helen

There’s a peculiar story in the newspapers today based on a study by Joshua Gans and Andrew Leigh, and if you frequent Club Troppo, John Quiggin’s blog or other economics blogs these names will be familiar to you.

Almost 700 mothers delayed giving birth so they could receive higher baby bonus payments that took effect from July last year, a study has found.

This story spawned a disgusting hatefest on news.com.au and similar forums, with all the usual suspects getting an airing: bogans, young single mums (Boo!), plasma tvs, dole bludgers, “natural selection”. You know the sort of thing. Like this gem from “Bruce”:

Disgusting. When will Australian mothers show some class? Caesarian’s beacause they are lazy [Naturally, Bruce gave birth to all his children himself, so he’s right across this subject] and now crossing their legs for taxpayers money… I truly pity the children of these creatures.

and “Al”:

haha, this would be the first time in history that the welfare mothers have kept there [sic] legs closed….

Gans and Leigh both blog the Baby Bonus story in more detail, here and here. They’re too civilised to indulge in the kind of crude banter referred to above, of course, but even for Gans the urge to make a passing reference to “a plasma TV” is too great.

Among the stentorian tones of the economists and the spittle-flecked rage of the news.com.au wingnuts, “Pidge of Brisbane”, who is over 60, put her hand up and quietly said:

I wish someone could tell me how you hold back a baby that is ready to come out.

Thank you, Pidge of Brisbane, for pointing out the bleeding (and pushing, and yelling) obvious. If my reading of the news reports and the original report is correct, you’ll see that the “delayed” births were heavily weighted towards elective caesarians or induced labours. I believe there are ways to delay labour medically, but if it’s a full-term baby which is ready to come, it’d be a hell of an intervention and I don’t see many doctors in our busy and understaffed hospitals agreeing to it for a non-medical reason. In short, they’re talking about babies being “delayed” but these are still pre-term babies.

If, in fact, these babies are just being allowed to be born closer to the time when their mums’ bodies make this imperative, then who exactly is being harmed? I’m not much of a naturist when it comes to the birthing issue – Loved the epidural, thanks- but I think the natural process of birth is simply being pushed to one side in favour of, yes, an over-medicalised definition of the process. If you have scheduled an elective caesarian or other procedure before your “due date”, and you then decide to delay that elective procedure, then you are merely… well, following the course of a normal pregnancy. If you can imagine such a thing.

But a funny thing happened on the way to the newspaper. Here’s Gans’ summing up of the problem as he sees it. This follows very closely the conclusion of the report itself, which touches briefly on the hypothetical possibility that physical harm might result but makes it very clear that the focus of the report is with the disruption of the hospital system and economic management, not with ZOMG Mothers killing their babies:

People have choices and respond to incentives. What we donít want is a normal, stable and predictable medical environment being disrupted by arbitrary incentives being handed down from above by governments. It is completely unwarranted. And to see it repeat itself again amounts to “nano-economic” mismanagement of a high order.

The original report doesn’t give any evidence of harm caused to babies as a result of this birth spike. In fact, it’s out of scope of the report. It’s mentioned as a hypothetical possibility (with some cherry-picked arse-covering doctor quotes along the lines that something bad might happen.) Apart from that, the focus is clearly on the disruption to the hospital system.

So, in that case, why is the AGE news report titled “Baby bonus a health risk, say doctors”? The report was by two economists, not doctors. Oh, I get it! They’re both PhDs, so they’re doctors! But wait – the report was about spikes in births causing disruption to the health system, and how the Baby Bonus is a bad policy generally. The “health risk” was a kite that was flown speculatively, but there was no actual morbidity study included in the report. Oh, I get it! ZOMG Mothers are Killing their Babies for Welfare payments makes a rather dry economists’ report into a juicy story!

Here’s what an actual obstetrician says:

Doctors say there is no way they would allow prospective mothers to do anything dangerous when it comes to childbirth.
Dr Chris Tippett is the president of the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.
“It’s very difficult to plan when your baby’s going to be delivered that far ahead of time,” she said.
“We know that 4 per cent of babies deliver on the date that we best calculate and what I’m saying is in fact the women who would be able to defer the deliveries – the women who would have had planned caesarean sections – often they’re planned at, say, 38 weeks and one or two days.
“There’d be no harm in transferring those to 39 weeks and two days.
“I think I’m correct in saying that last time that this occurred and people looked at the data more closely, it seemed likely that this effect was associated with people deferring things like caesarean sections.”

Two points.

One, the voices raised in opposition to the over-medicalisation of birth – especially the scheduling of births with elective caesars and inductions – have often been women. Their charge that such scheduling was often done with the convenience of medical professionals in mind has never captured the public imagination, so we have continued with the elective caesars and the rest of it. Now someone has come up with a report showing that some women may have turned that very system to their – the mothers’ – advantage, and suddenly it’s time for a blamefest. Oh the irony.

Two: it was depressing to read the outpouring of hatred and bile against a hypothetical population of mothers who are all in the eighth grade, selfish, TV-buying harlots. The AGE and news.com.au articles highlighted the misogynist and vicious streak in our population – women commenters as well as men – which still survives and thrives, and which the internet brings out, blinking, from under its usual rock. (The ire is directed as much at poor people in general as it is against women.) It would have been great if Gans and Leigh had made some reference to the inappropriateness of their response, and distanced themselves from it, rather than just whistling and talking amongst themselves with arms folded while the Two-Minute Hate went on around them. After all, they must have known that “Baby Bonus a Health risk, say doctors” was not an accurate description of the conclusions of their report.

Comments (0)

  • lauredhel says:

    Nailed it.

    Plus, this:
    “Doctors say there is no way they would allow prospective mothers to do anything dangerous when it comes to childbirth.”

    Doctors will “allow” whatever women choose, in terms of delaying birth interventions, thankyouverymuch. Short of a court order, they’re not allowed to shove protesting women into restraints and stick needles into them, administer drugs, rupture their membranes, cut them open. If a woman withholds consent for a procedure in an informed manner, her doctors have no legal choice but to “allow” her to, unless they want to be up on assault charges – even if her choice is a dangerous one.

    I’m sick to bloody death of obstetricians and their infantilising pontifications about what they will and will not “allow”. And more women should be pressing those charges.

  • Joshua Gans says:

    I think your post here was interesting. Although you are reading too much into what we may or may not have responded to. My primary interest was on getting the government to do something sensible. In addition, if you read the comments at news.com.au, there were lots of lunatics but there were also plenty of voices of reason. I don’t think that the statements you were concerned about went unresponded.

    On that score, if you look carefully over our research (not just one paper) we have been much more concerned about scheduling practices for the seeming convenience of medical practitioners than we have about incentives on parents. Oh yes, by the way, parents. Why the assumption by everyone that it is just women?

    That said, The Age headline was ridiculous.

  • Helen says:

    Joshua – I don’t want to be unfair and hit you with the “Unless you come out vigorously denouncing ****, you must be in favour of it!” Of course, we’re all busy working people and you don’t have time to explore every nuance. But the newspaper / online articles touched off some real ugliness, which I put down to the way the story was spun, not your report, I must point out.

    I disagree that the hatred was equally directed against men and women. As I said myself, there is a lot of hatred directed at poor people in general (“natural selection”). But the real nastiness was weighted against the mothers, as it so often is in these forums. Yes, I was pleased when I got home and had time to page through all the comments and found some good ‘uns (Go, Robert of Adelaide!) Forgive me if that doesn’t change my mind to find the whole thread hunky dory. It’s still a worry.

    I also saw many intelligent comments on Andrew’s blog, from Rajat Sood, Dave Rubie, Lauredhel and others.

    Lauredhel, I’d love to see something by you on this topic when you’re over your domestic relocation, as you are so much more knowledgeable than I am on the minutiae of the health system.

  • Joshua Gans says:

    You misunderstand, I agree with you fully that the hatred was against women. I was just pointing out that we never said or alluded to that.

    But you are right, how this gets spun is an issue. I do intend to write about it (soon). Silence is more about consideration than not caring.

    That said, your post was provocative.

  • As it damn well should be. I am glad there’s people like Helen caring about this side of things.

  • […] The Common Sense Approach: Smattered through the news.com.au and other comment were lots of statements that reflected exactly the type of things being argued above. I am glad those views exist and that people felt passionate enough to express them as a minority in a much larger on-line crowd. I think they are summed up by this extensive post. This view highlighted the points that we need to debate and investigate — namely, what are the health risks and how is the system really working to allow economics and other stuff to seep in? After all, parents can’t just choose to delay. But what latitude do they have? Is it too much? Does it create risks for others? Having spent the last 18 months or so looking into this, there are many reasons to be concerned. So, aside from the issue of whether the jumps to the baby bonus are bad (of course, they are no good), there is an issue with respect to the operation of the industry that is being exposed here. […]

  • marymary says:

    That was scary, I’d never read any of the comments section on news.com before. Guess I’d better get myself off to a church before even contemplating the idea of children. Although even that may not save me; I suspect I would be considered a socialist or a feminist, so I probably shouldn’t allow my gene’s to be reproduced. I might raise more socialists and feminists who are the undoing of society!! Although, I’m quite confused, because I wouldn’t use the money to buy a plasma tv? Am I permitted to have children or not???!!!

  • marymary says:

    Also, on wikipedia, (not always absolutely correct!) it says that anywhere between 37 and 43 weeks is considered a full term pregancy. (I’m too scared to write that on the other blog!) So their hysteria is just… just… I’m just lost for words!

  • lauredhel says:

    Lauredhel, I’d love to see something by you on this topic when you’re over your domestic relocation, as you are so much more knowledgeable than I am on the minutiae of the health system.

    There’s a rough note in my drafts folder, as it happens. I don’t know when I’ll get to fleshing it out, or whether it will contain much more than the comments I’ve already made – but maybe it will 🙂

  • su says:

    I’m (almost) speechless. Delaying a scheduled caesarian or induction to a date closer to term poses no health risks at all. What is the rationale behind this research? Is there any evidence at all that natural labours were artificially delayed? We need another version of “get your rosaries off my ovaries”. “Get your econometrics out of my obstetrics”?

  • Helen says:

    No Su, the actual report wasn’t saying that at all. It was the Mighty Morphin’ Power Media which translated “economists identify spike in delayed (scheduled) births which could possibly cause trouble because it’s swamping the medical resources” to “Greedy mums putting bubs at risk by literally sewing themselves shut and ..”, well, you know. and the wonderful commenters on news.com.au which just kicked the whole thing along.

  • Hattie says:

    Thanks for visiting my blog, Helen.
    This discussion is freaking me out. Of course in my enlightened country (the U.S.)we have no particular benefits for mothers, married or unmarried, so issues of this sort don’t come up.

    The poorest segment of our population is children and the richest, the elderly.

  • […] Read the whole thing at Blogger on the Cast Iron Balcony. […]

  • Rebekka says:

    Lauredhel, that’s EXACTLY what I thought when I read the word “allow”.

    Grrrr. It sums up what’s wrong with the entire medical model of birth.

  • blue milk says:

    This is fantastic – a pleasure to read, well done.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.