Homework #50: First Third of "The American Way of Death Revisited"

Précis

The funeral industry seeks to gain profit through manipulation of the interactions between them and the bereaved. Rules are made up, unnecessary embalming is implemented, all in the hopes of earning more money while providing for the loss.

Quotes

“They have from time to time published lists of In and Out words and phrases to be memorized and used in connection with the final return of dust to dust; then, still dissatisfied with the result, they have elaborated and revised the list. Thus, a 1916 glossary substitutes “prepare body” for “handle corpse”. Today, though, “body” is Out and “remains” or “Mr. Jones” is In,” (p. 52).

“A funeral service is a social function at which the deceased is the guest of honor and the center of attraction...A poorly prepared body in a beautiful casket is just as incongruous as a young lady appearing at a party in a costly gown and with her hair in curlers,” (p. 54).

“’If embalming is taken out of the funeral, then viewing the body will also be lost. If viewing is lost, then the body itself will not be central to the funeral. If the body is taken out of the funeral, then what does the funeral director have to sell?” (p. 63).

Analytical Paragraph

            Jessica Mitford sheds light on a lot of aspects of the funeral industry that the outside world tends to ignore. Like any industry, the incentive is always money, no matter the emotional situation. While a funeral parlor seems hardly the place for a hidden money trade, Mitford explicitly describes its existence. This can be seen in the placement of the caskets in the showroom. Using various techniques, Undertakers are able to swindle their customers into buying the more expensive caskets. Placed in order of price, the bereaved is led around based on their reaction to the different prices, ultimately with them ending up buying something that is in their minds “worthy” of their loved one and also quite beneficial to the Undertaker. Why does this come as such a surprise? Death is taboo, in the American culture many never speak of it. Because of the deep emotional implications of death, it is clear that people are vulnerable to outside forces, however I doubt it would ever cross one’s mind to accuse the Undertakers of taking advantage of this vulnerability. The question also comes up, is this really a bad thing? Insurers swindle their clients out of money, why should it be wrong for an Undertaker to take what he rightfully believes is his? The undertakers in a sense could even be helping the bereaved, through this “grief therapy.” However there must be a point when a line is drawn between providing grief therapy and arranging caskets in order to manipulate the buyer. It seems unfair that one must worry about their finances in such an emotional time. 

Homework #48: Family Perspective on the Care of the Dead

            My mother and father, after knowing each other for forty years had extremely similar answers to the questions. These ideas have also trickled down into both what my sister and I think about the care of the dead. Aside from the fact that it gives no place for people to morn, my mother wants to be cremated. She feels that a burial is too elaborate and eventually there will not be enough room in the ground anyway. To solve the problem of the lack of memorial place, she wants to create a place for her children, or my sister and I, to remember her by. This would then be there if we ever wanted to think about them again and want a place to go to remember them. “We might even have a conversation with you guys too about what would be the best way to do that, because it’s more than just yourself, but your kids live on and their kids.”

            The conversation then moved on to my mother’s personal experience with the care of the dead. She feels that we are very removed from the process; we hire somebody else to care for the body. But she did also share her memories at various funerals and wakes. She feels that they are more sad depending on how much people miss the individual, or if they were a parent, or younger person. Wakes appeal to her most because they are a way to celebrate the person’s life itself. The purpose of these ceremonies she feels is both to finally rest the body in peace, but also a way of dealing with the body. My mother stated that she does not believe in the religious idea of the spirit going to heaven while the body rests in peace. It is more of the final step for the living to carry on the deceased’s memory.

             Next we spoke of the treatment of the body during the entire process of life after death. She expressed her views on embalming as follows, “If you’re trying to preserve the body for being in a casket, I’ve always assumed that the body needs to be treated in a certain way. Part of the process is if people want to see the body, they can see it in a better condition.” She is not sure if this is something people do because of religious beliefs or simply because it is a long lasting tradition. When the body is deceased she also brought up the idea of donating organs. She herself is not so interested in that, but she is not sure why. “For me to have a way for you to come visit me and have some place where you would be and wanted to remember us, there would be something. I don’t think my body necessarily needs to be in a casket in a graveyard.” This lack of interest in a graveyard burial she assumes is due to the fact that she does not belong to a church. Her mother and father on the other hand both belong to churches and wish to have either their ashes or bodies laid to rest there.

            After talking with my mother, I approached my father about his views on the care of the dead. He is actually unsure if he would rather be cremated or buried. His problem with cremation, like my mother, is that there is no place at which others can come remember you. To bury an entire body however he thinks is a waste of space, just as my mother brought up the fact that there is not enough room in the earth for everyone. “But I figure it’s probably nice for the relatives to come visit me, whoever wanted to. I think it would be better to cremate me and then put me in a place where people could come remember me, rather than a cemetery filled with death.”

            In terms of his own experience, he has been to a couple of family member’s funerals. “When somebody dies I want to go be there with them and their family, to help.” His mother on the other hand as he expressed, tries to hide the fact that anyone has died, sometimes even neglecting to mention it to him and his siblings. Because of this, he feels more of an obligation to be there for the funeral, as to be different from his mother. He then goes on to describe the few funerals he’s been to and the affects they had on the family. At the end of his stories, he threw in another opinion: “I don’t buy the whole thing that the Egyptians do, like the mummies. That’s such a culture of death and almost stagnation. Always looking backwards.”

            I then turned the conversation again to the actual bodies. “You have to get rid of the bodies before they infect the entire population. The tradition has started around that as far as I know. But I think it serves to give people a type of closure, that it’s ended.” Both he and my mother brought up the idea of doing something with the body, before bringing up the idea of closure. He too brought up the art of donating organs, “Donating organs and things like that is really nice if you can figure out how to make that work. Eyes and kidneys are very useful. Some people get creeped out about that but that’s a good thing to make more natural.” He then goes on to describe the reasoning for our customs around death. “In our western tradition we weep and wail and delay. It takes us a long time to get a big expensive funeral organized, so that allows you to not have to rush the body into the ground.” It is all about having more time for the living to face the fact that this other person is truly gone. “It seems like our funeral ritual is more about tribute and getting people together for a big event, so embalming is more important. Probably also helps people not fear the dead so much, because they do not look as scary when you see them.” My father’s main goal in all of this however is to not be a burden on anyone. “I think I’ll be very good fertilizer.”

            After hearing both of their experiences and opinions surrounding the care of the dead, it was interesting to see how the generations compare. My peers when confronted with the same questions were more philosophical about it. They spoke of everyone’s need for closure and the whole process of letting go of the person. None of them mentioned the fact that these ceremonies were there to deal with the bodies, as my parents did. Both of them addressed this purpose of funerals and cremations before diving into the emotional aspects of the ceremonies. While each of my peers spoke a little bit about the after life and its possible existence, my mother specifically stated that she did not believe in it. Because of this I believe it caused her answers to be more factual, rather than ideas. For both of my parents embalming served as a way to prepare for the body for viewing, so that it does not frighten people. I think they hit a very valid point here. People are afraid of death and what they look like. There are ancient stories of people rising from the grave and stories even now of ghost sightings. Embalming I think encourages the opposite of these thoughts, it keeps the humanity in the person, so that they are less frightening.

            Both of my parents wanted a place, by which one could remember them, which I thought was a very nice idea. With cremation this is possibly sacrificed, however they clearly have a way around it. I thought it was interesting that their main goal in the care of their bodies was to have a way to be remembered. Unlike my peers, who were more concerned with what might happen after death, my parents were able to think about the living. Maybe it is because they have a family, children, that they began to think about the people they are leaving behind. A generation younger, my interviewed peers have yet to have children and still have their focus on themselves, not necessarily a bad thing. Their ideas around death had to do with their own way of coping, to ensure that they rest in peace. The realization that it does not matter has not come to them, the pure facts of it. My parents spoke so easily of being “fertilizer” perhaps because they have faced the fact that this is what it will be like (at least in their own minds). There is no doubt about what happens after death, therefore they were able to stop thinking about themselves and instead about the people they left behind and the impression they wanted to leave with them. 

Homework#47: Peer Interview on Care of the Dead

          

 For this purpose I decided to interview three different people, all of whom had seemingly similar, but at the same time extremely different views on the care of the dead. Person A when asked, wanted to be buried, to keep her body intact after death, incase people really do move on to another life or are reincarnated. However she did express some interest in cremation, because the body can then lie anywhere. She then continued to explain her experience with death, as in funerals and shivas. Shivas she feels remind a person of how great the deceased is, which she finds comforting and nice. The point of these ceremonies in her eyes is to honor the person who has died. When asked what she felt the purpose of embalmers was, her only reply was so that people could study the body in the future, but that she was not really sure. Lastly, tying into this, Person A cares a little about what will happen to her body after death, but she herself does not understand why, as she will be dead.

            Person B’s answers varied a bit, starting off with the fact that she wants to be cremated. Through cremation people are able to leave a spiritual part of themselves behind, as opposed to a bodily part, which would be through burial. This she believes will help her be connected to a place, as she finds this to be her new spiritual belief about life after death. Person B’s question about death was how a morgue works, and who invented one in the first place? She also briefly asked how embalming works. So far Person B’s experience with death has been funerals of distant relatives, up until a close friend of hers died unexpectedly last year. The friend had an open casket funeral in a church and she remembers seeing his body thinking, “that’s not really him.” In dealing with this death it was best to be around friends, as opposed to the traditional funeral. She believes that these funerals and cremations exist because of humankind’s fear of what comes after death. Person B believes that instead of having the focus be

what comes after death, funerals should be refocused on the person’s lived life, rather than the religious aspects. Contrary to the belief of Person A, Person B finds that the purpose of embalming is too another way to cling to the life within the deceased. It is a way for people to deal with loss, as the body could just be sleeping.

            Lastly Person C added another perspective to the concepts surrounding care of the dead. This person was undecided about burial and cremation. Cremation in her mind has been romanticized by the movies and the media, to make it this grand ordeal of parting with those whom one loves. She finds the idea sweet but unrealistic. However when thinking about burial, her only worry is that there will not be enough room in the ground for everyone to be buried. The cost of both processes also entered her mind, unlike the other two interviewees. Next she questioned the care of the dead, as she herself asked what is more popular, cremation or burial? Is there any maintenance of the bodies after the burial? And what are the downsides of being cremated? All very interesting questions that tend to revolve around the actual transition from life to death. In terms of her own experiences, Person C has been to a few funerals over the past couple of years for distant relatives. Earlier this year she attended one for her great aunt, after which she was allowed to take anything from the house that she wanted. She found it extremely discomforting that she was allowed to just take anything, without a single thought. Like Person B, Person C also thought that the point of these burials and cremations is to make the transition to death less scary, so that people have time to debrief. However she does find the whole thing a bit odd, as all of this care, in the end, does not make much of a difference, the person is still deceased. After death Person C does not care what happens to her body. She will be dead, so she will not know what happens anyway. The care of her body is no longer in her hands, therefore she should not be the one to decide how it happens.

            All three of my interviewees had similar opinions to my own and were able to demonstrate the ideas around death in the late teen, early adult age of life. It is apparent that we are indecisive in our options, however that is not to say that we have not given them thought. Person B, the oldest of the group, knew that she wanted to be cremated, but after years of indecisiveness. The other two interviewees and I both felt that they had an idea in mind of what they wanted, however was still vaguely contemplating the other option, as Person A wanted to be buried, but still considered the benefits of cremation. The main issue presented here with burial seems to be that a person is trapped underground, however their body intact. This would of course allow life to be regenerated through the body, a connection to the earth still present. Cremation brought up more thoughts of lying anywhere in the world, being spiritually connected to the earth. In the end it comes down to the type of connection one might want, physical or spiritual.

            In terms of experience with care of the dead, all were extremely vague and could provide limited insight. The overall trend appears that it is a sad event, however a bit unreal. Everything that happens, such as the wake, shiva, funeral etc. is focused around the living dealing with the death of the person, rather than celebrating the life the deceased had lived. While Person B it seemed as though all of these things were ways in which people cling to the dead, Person C felt that through the distribution of the deceased’s belongings, the deceased’s life was being erased. The ceremonies in general felt oddly irrelevant to the person’s physical death to Person C, as the events do not change the reality of the death. This is an interesting point; the person is still dead no matter the celebration around their death. Why is it then so important? Everything seems to have solely developed to help the living cope with death. Once the person is dead, as all three of them stated, they do not really care what happens to their bodies afterwards, as it is not their problem, they are dead. But why then is it so important to the living? Is it so they feel that when they themselves die, they will go to a better place?

Sorry for the late post, I didn't have internet until today. 

Homework #46: Initial Thoughts on the Care of the Dead

            The first and only time I was at a funeral I think I was three and it was that of my second cousin’s. I do not remember much; I have one image in my mind of us sitting in a large church, with his children crying up in the front pews. The memory then fades and turns into the entire procession standing outside in the grass, except I remember being happy. Clearly unable to grasp much of the experience because of my young age, the care of the dead has rarely made its way into my realm of thoughts. The only other time I was confronted with the situation of a death was earlier this year, when a close friend of my mom’s husband died and we went to the wake. My sister and I walked around awkwardly for a few minutes and then stood at the coffin. It then occurred to me that there was a body inside of it, one that I could not see, but was nonetheless present. This idea made me uncomfortable, causing any thought of death to be pushed from my mind for the remainder of the night. With only these two experiences behind me, I do not know much of the care of the dead. I have only ever seen coffins and people dressed in black, otherwise ignoring any potentially informative details. The coffins hid the details of their care, separating the world of the dead from that of the living. As a child I barely understood the event, however when older I continued to push the thought from my mind. Perhaps this is taught to us, to treat death as an unthinkable thing, something that must be hidden.

            Besides the common experiences of the aforementioned funeral and wake, my family has never really discussed the care of the dead. The only time I can explicitly remember anything being mentioned about the care of their bodies after death was when we were with my aunt and uncle, saying goodbye to their dog who had recently died of cancer. They had cremated their dog and wished to pour the ashes into the lake on which our family had a house. Accompanying them, we all took our boat out the middle of the lake and poured the ashes into the water, which floated away with the flowers we had thrown in afterwards. I remember my dad watching the ashes float and stating that this is what he wanted: when he died he wanted to be cremated and have his ashes spread in the lake. I am not sure he even remembers saying this, but for some reason it stuck in my memory, as I feel we rarely ever talk about what we want to happen with our bodies when they cease to live. It was surprising to my eight-year-old self that my father would even think about his own death, the way that he wished to rest in peace. I guess I had always assumed he would want to be buried, both he and my mother. Cremation had never really occurred to me as a way of treating a body after death, while it now gains popularity.

            After being asked in class if we wished to be cremated or buried, or did not care what happened to our bodies, I was forced to think of my own ideas. The only thing I raised my hand for was caring about what happened to my body after death. Even though my father wished or perhaps still wishes to be cremated, the idea is a bit complicated for me to grasp. Not a religious person at all, I however cannot help to think what if. To be cremated is to transform your body into ashes; it no longer takes your own human form. While rather childish, the thought still comes through my mind, what if you can come back to life. Somebody who was cremated would not have that option, their body would no longer be in its living state. I find the idea appealing that one’s ashes can be spread in places where the body cannot be buried, however in my mind it is a sacrifice of the body’s humanity. I believe that I must mature in this area at some point and stop believing what if. For I must consider, would I really want to come back to life given the opportunity?

Why do we wear black to mourn the dead?

How does the care of the dead intertwine with one’s idea of the after life?

How do other societies compare in their care of the dead?

When and why did cremation become popular in the United States?

Why is a funeral so significant?

Why do we have funerals, wakes, and memorials, instead of just one?

Homework #45: Responding to Comments

Response to Bjorn: You believe that a fetus is considered a separate being eight weeks after fertilization, thus the mother has no right to endanger the fetus. While I understand that viewed as a separate being, this is a completely logical argument, it is important to look at the science of the situation. A fetus is completely dependent on the mother for food, oxygen, blood, or in other words life. If a country were to be funded by another, to the point where one monitored the other's resources, the providing country would have control over the fate of the inferior country. Why is a fetus living off of the mother any different? While it is a human life, that country is human lives.

Response to Devin: I agree with you when you said that some women will risk having a stillbirth rather than having a cesarean section. I do not think that doctors should be blamed for the stillbirth at all either, it is a mother's choice. Perhaps if doctors were not blamed so heavily for letting the mother decide how she wants to go about her own birth, then there would be less forceful actions and doctor dominance in childbirth. I understand that a mother would be happier if she had a child through cesarean than a stillbirth vaginally, but I believe in the grand scheme of things, the entire experience might feel more empowering with a vaginal birth. It seems like that has been the reoccurring theme in anecdotes of vaginal birth.

Response to Lindsay: I think this is a really interesting point. I'm sure in terms of education, it happens a lot with college educated women who have taken a women studies class. Otherwise there is very little information available to women about pregnancy and birth. I would expect these women to be most likely to refuse a cesarean section and get themselves into this situation. Women without a college education or some sort of advising prior to birth might not understand the effects of a cesarean section on a women or her child. Without this education a doctor is the dominant figure, the one that a woman would feel that she could entirely trust. However we must realize that we are all human and sometimes would rather work for our own convenience rather than the overall health of another person.

Homework #44: Comments

To Sarah: In this piece you describe the lack of care pregnant women in jails receive due to neglect. 

I liked the way you incorporated women's personal stories into your writing in order to create a much more vivid image. 
This topic is extremely important, mainly due to the fact that so little light is shed upon it. People do not really think to consider the pregnant women in jail. While there is a reason for them being there (usually), it is no reason to treat their child badly. Many times in pregnancy fetus and mother are see as one entity, however in this case I believe it is best to view them as two separate beings. 
Perhaps next time you could propose how you think this should be changed.

To Devin: Here you discussed the benefits and risks of cutting the umbilical cord directly versus waiting a couple minutes. 

I liked that although you were supporting the idea that the umbilical cord should not be immediately cut, you still wrote out the risks. It shows that you understand that there is no perfect way, only a more beneficial one.

I think this is a really significant aspect of pregnancy and birth that gets overlooked. I doubt that I would have ever thought about my placenta and when the cord should be cut from my child. After reading this, I hope I remember later on when I plan to have children to wait a while before cutting the cord. 

It would have been nice however to have a visual, rather than a description of your pamphlet. 

To Amanda: You wrote about teen pregnancy and the lack of prenatal care that they receive. 

I thought that the part about how teenagers struggle with eating disorders and do not necessarily understand the importance of giving up drugs and alcohol was very important. While older mothers have a lot on their hands, we must realize that teen mothers need a different kind of support, as they have so much social pressure upon them, especially for something they do not necessarily want to go through. 

This matters to me because it is about people in my age group. Just to be aware of this is important. Everyone hears about how to not get pregnant, but not necessarily what to do once you're pregnant. I think you clearly demonstrated the importance of prenatal care for teens here. 

Maybe next time you could find a couple examples of teens and their stories. 

To Ariel: Your piece revolved around the birth of your sister and your experience watching your mother receive less than adequate care. You then connected this to your own future and how you might have gone about the situation. 

I valued how personal you were able to get with this post. It was nice to hear a first hand account of what went on, from someone other than the mother's perspective. 

I think this is significant because it really illustrates how a hospital works with the convenience of the doctor in mind. The fact that the nurse would even attempt to push the baby back into the mother is horrifying. 

Next time I might put even a little more of your own analysis, but otherwise I really enjoyed it. 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From Bjorn: As always your text are very informative and filled with lots of interesting thoughts. Something that I reacted on was the sentence: 

"A fetus is dependent on its mother; therefore it is subject to her rule, even if doctors feel she is endangering the child. Up until birth, the mother’s life is that for which society must look out for."
Which was something that goes against my personal belief about childbirth since a fetus is considered a human being 8 weeks after fertilization why both human beings should be equally valued at birth. The mother, therefore should not be granted the right to endanger the fetus by any circumstances.

From Devin: WOW!!! You have really written a manifesto for the right of women to fight court-ordered cesareans when the mothers are of sound mind. You go on to make a strong case for why pregnant women's own health should come before the health of the fetus.

I was impressed with the way you documented your points, stating the legal rights of the mother as upheld by the Supreme Court. 

A reason why I think your project is so important is because of the people in this country who would like to reverse the Roe vs Wade decision of the Supreme Court and ban abortion. Obviously, these people don't think that women should have control over their own lives and bodies, and I think they are completely wrong. 

There is one area though that is complicated and that is that a pregnant woman cannot know all the dangers to her un-born child. She has to trust her doctor, and the problem seems to be that doctors, because of lawsuits and convenience are delivering too many babies by cesaerean section. This fact makes women not be able to trust doctors, and this is obviously a bad situation. My point is that there can be some women who might be willing to take a risk by not having a cesaearen and regret it later if the child turns out to be in great danger.

Johnny: This is a really well written very informative post and clear post. I understood basically everything and I knew what points you were trying to get across. 

I was shocked to see how many women had to go to the hospital to do a mandatory abortion. 
The reason why I think your project is important is because you cite a whole bunch of things having to do with unecessary maandatory abortions and just in general this topic is really interesting and i think everyone should know about this. 
Even though this was a good paper the only two little pieces of cold feedback i have is, you kind of repeat yourself in two paragraphs, and the other suggestion is to make it a little shorter. But besides that it was a really enjoyable paper to read and i definantly gained some new insights out of reading this.

Lindsay: I think that you analysis of the way that hospitals and the courts can interfere with a woman's body, particularly in a way that no other person in the country would be asked to do for someone else.

In the beginning of this unit I made a comment that the consideration of race and class would be an interesting lens to look through these power issues of pregnancy and birth. I wonder what kinds of patterns you would find in which areas court ordered cesarians happen most. Really great topic!

From Casey: Natalie,

Great job of describing the various ways that women are abused via judicial systems and doctors, and why it is considered abuse. I felt your passion oozing out of the computer screen. It was engaging and educational.
I particularly valued your insight that soon-to-be-mothers are the only people in society who are forced to undergo invasive surgery and even abuse for the sake of another life, and an un-born, dependent one at that. This had never occured to me, and I think it is particularly persuasive.
This project matters to me because I have empathy for all the women who have to fight for their ideal births, and for my future, potentially pregnant self. I sincerely recommend that you do send this blog post to an editorial-writing contest or another means of getting it published. I think this is worth reading, for many.

Homework #42: Culminating Birth Project

            After having previously given birth vaginally and through cesarean section, a woman chose to have her baby at home with a midwife. During her labor, she found it hard to keep fluids down, resulting in dehydration. For fear of endangering her child with her dehydration, the woman went to the hospital to have an IV, in hopes of soon after returning back home. Upon arriving at the hospital the doctor asked if she had had a previous cesarean, when she had he wished immediately to admit her to the operating room for a c-section. When she refused he gave her an ultimatum: she would only receive the IV if she submitted to the c-section. While thinking this over a nurse came to the woman and offered her a back exit, so that she could flee the hospital and continue her birth at home. After learning of her escape the hospital called the court, which passed legal guardianship of the fetus to the hospital, ultimately forcing the woman into a c-section. Upon legal obligation, a sheriff showed up at the mother’s house, prepared to bring her to the hospital. The woman had no choice but to consent, as if she did not, she would be arrested. At the hospital a c-section was performed and the baby came out entirely healthy, the cesarean clearly unnecessary.

            Court ordered c-sections such as the story before are becoming more and more common as mothers refuse treatment. Instead of respecting the mother’s wishes, she is overthrown by the medical industry and the judicial court. This raises many questions as to who has the right to the woman’s body, the child she is carrying, or she herself, who has the power to decide: the doctors or the mothers? Court ordered cesareans raise many ethical questions that need to be addressed, however the most crucial point is that the government should not have control over another human being’s body. The government has no right to order a cesarean section on a woman except in the case that the mother cannot make an informed decision because of lack of a sound mind; the child is an extension of the mother during the gestational period, therefore a part of her body and a woman has the right to make decisions about her own body and health, ordered cesareans can pose significant health risks to the mother, and in any other situation, a human would not be forced to sacrifice their own life for another’s.  

            To begin, while it is clear that a woman should have the right to her own body and to make decisions about it, this is brought into question when with child. It must be understood that the fetus is not yet a separate being, but instead is entirely dependent on the mother. This idea is described here: “Some argue that the fetus has no moral status independent of the mother, but acquires moral status at birth. It is the emergence into the social world that is thought to transfer moral status [9]. This implies that a pregnant woman has the moral right to abort a viable fetus, but not to kill her newborn infant [3],” (Legal Rights and the Maternal Fetus Conflict). Here it is discussed that a fetus does not become an independent being until leaving the mother, meaning that the fetus would then be classified as part of the mother. They state that the mother has the right to abort her fetus, but not kill her newborn infant. In the case of birth, the baby is still considered a fetus while inside the mother, therefore giving the mother rights to make decisions about the fetus. If death unfortunately occurs because of the mother’s decision against cesarean, she cannot be prosecuted against, as it was still her right. Furthermore, the court should not have the power to interfere with the fetus, as the fetus is part of her body, thus under her control.

            Again this pattern continues, “The concept of health, as defined by the Supreme Court in Doe v. Bolton, includes ‘all medical, psychological, social, familial and economic factors that may potentially encourage a decision to obtain an abortion’ [5]. Thus, the mother’s life and health takes precedence over the life of the fetus right up until birth,” (Legal Rights and the Maternal Fetus Conflict). As ruled by the Supreme Court themselves, the mother’s life during the gestational period through labor is more highly valued than that of the fetus. Therefore a court ordered cesarean is implemented to save a life valued less than the one it could potentially harm. As the mother has the higher valued life, it is also clear that her rights be maintained throughout the birth process. After many rulings about abortion where the mother has the right to make decisions about her own body, it would only be expected that these rights continue until the child is out of the womb. A mother is still a person, “Those opposed to forced treatment of pregnant women argue that every person has a fundamental right to freedom of choice and control over his or her own life. Forcing a pregnant woman to undergo medical treatment against her will or to behave in ways she does not freely choose violates this right... Others have no right to impose on her their own judgments about what they think is best for her and her fetus, depriving her of her freedom to make her own choices and to control her own life,” (Maternal vs Fetal Rights). Clearly stated here is the violation of a woman’s rights when a medical treatment is forced upon her. While the fetus may one day be an independent being, at that point in time, it is dependent on the mother, therefore no surgery can be enforced on her to remove the fetus. While others can obviously think and say their own opinions about the mother and her decisions regarding the fetus, they have no right to make these opinions actions. Carrying child or not, a woman is a person, not an object carrying another life. Of course the child’s life is valuable, however it has not yet begun, while the mother’s has thrived for many years. In no way should the medical world be able to alter the developed life of a mother in order to save a life not yet started.

            Many doctors resort to court ordered cesarean because they believe the mother is endangering the child in the most extreme way possible. However it appears that the child in most cases is perfectly fine and could have been born successfully vaginally. In the cases where the mother escapes the court ordered cesarean, as in she has the child before the c-section is carried out, there is the reoccurring event that the child is birthed easily and healthily, “Data obtained on court-ordered obstetric interventions has suggested that in approximately one-third of the cases where court authority was sought for a medical intervention, the medical treatment was considered wrong or harmful in retrospect [11],” (Legal Rights and the Maternal-Fetal Conflict). Therefore ordering this generally unnecessary procedure on women is abuse and should not be a privilege of the court. This treatment is clearly harmful to the mother and child, especially used unnecessarily. These procedures are generally implemented to help people, but instead they are harming women’s bodies and creating unwarranted complications. Examples of this are discussed here, “But while the procedure is usually quite safe and can be potentially lifesaving for mother and baby, it also poses a number of potential risks, including severe bleeding, infection, injury to the fetus, blood clots, and even the mother's death in extremely rare cases,” (Collier, Could you be forced to have a c-section?). There are many risks that come with c-sections that the mother is submitted to when the fetus is forcefully removed. Of course there are risks to vaginal birth, however the mother chooses to submit her body to these risks, while with court ordered cesareans she is being forced into accepting them.

            Two cases in particular were discussed on websites to illustrate the traumatic effects of cesarean sections, both times having been court ordered: “Years ago, a Washington, D.C., hospital got a court order to perform a c-section on Angela Carder, who was gravely ill with cancer. Since the mom was in such poor health, the hospital's doctors believed that delivering the 26-week fetus immediately would give it a better chance of survival than waiting for a natural delivery. The result? Carder and her baby both died soon after the operation. Later, in a landmark 1990 ruling, an appeals court overturned the order, finding that Carder had a right to make medical decisions for herself and her unborn child,” (Collier, Could you be forced to have a c-section?). Despite the court ruling after her death ultimately granting her the right to make decisions for the fetus, this situation could have had a much better ending. While the mother was gravely ill, there were no present inflictions upon the child. The mother understood going into the birth process that she was sick and that it could pose a risk to her child, however she carried on. There is no evidence to support the idea that the child would not have survived if it had remained inside the womb for the full 41 weeks. Additionally, court ordered cesareans are implemented to protect the child, however in this case the child was not helped, but instead died along with its mother. The cesarean section most likely had an effect on the death of the mother and was clearly the reason for the child’s death. It in turn could have been more harmful than letting the child grow full term. There comes too many times where the mother and child are put more at risk than the natural birth process would have entailed.

            The next case involves a 300-pound woman and her experience with court ordered cesarean. Because of her weight, doctors felt that the baby was at risk and should be delivered through cesarean. When she refused they resorted to the court, which then issued a cesarean for the sake of the fetus. “The court found the fetus to be dependent and neglected, and ordered that a section be performed to safeguard the life of the unborn infant. Surgery was performed eleven hours after admission, more than six hours after the internal electronic heart monitor had indicated fetal distress. The baby was reported to be healthy; while the initial Apgar was two, the five-minute Apgar was eight.[v] Physicians admitted surprise at this good outcome; the woman, on the other hand, suffered from delayed healing of the incision wound (Annas 1982; Bowes and Selgestad 1981; Memorandum in Support of Petition and Order 1979),” (Irwin, Knowledge Practice and Power: Court Ordered Cesarean Sections). While initially the child was seen to be unhealthy, the reevaluation proved surprising to the doctors, as the child was actually extremely healthy. The fact that it shocked the doctors proves both the mistakes and misconceptions among the medical world. However, while the child was fine, it is stated that the mother suffered from “delayed healing of the incision wound.” Judging by the doctors’ surprise, the child would have been able to be born successfully vaginally. Therefore unnecessary pain was inflicted upon the mother with no benefit to the fetus. This is a crucial example of harm to the mother for no purpose, therefore supporting the elimination of court ordered cesarean. In no way should a mother have to suffer through a cesarean section when it does not significantly benefit the child.

            Not only must a mother suffer unnecessary pain because of court ordered cesarean, she is also required to sacrifice her body for another person, something that society does not ask of any other. There are no other cases in the medical world where one person is subject to surgery to save another person’s life. Of course there are cases where the person willingly gives up an organ, or donates blood, but that is their choice. A court ordered cesarean is a forced surgery enforced upon unwilling women. Why should they have to suffer for a child whose life has not yet any significant value? “Furthermore, forcing pregnant women to submit to medical treatment for the sake of their fetuses is to impose an obligation on them that we do not impose on others. And, justice requires that all persons be treated equally. In our society, we allow people the right to refuse medical treatment and the right to refuse to subordinate their desires or needs to the needs of others. We don't, for example, force some people to donate their kidneys, bone marrow or blood in order to benefit or even to save the lives of other people... To require this of pregnant women is to demand from them something over and above what we demand from the rest of society,” (Maternal vs Fetal Rights). In no other case would a woman be forced to go through surgery for another person. If everyone is to be treated equally, then society is in a violation of this right when court ordered cesareans are performed. It is stated here that the donation of kidneys, blood etc. is never required, even if it is necessary to save another person’s life. Thus a mother should not be required to sacrifice her body to save the life of her apparent endangered child.

            Performing the cesarean against the mother’s will is technically abuse. In any other situation the surgery would be seen as a direct violation of the mother and her privacy, ultimately abusing her body. This is illustrated here, “Once pregnant, a woman effectively cedes her right to autonomy and bodily integrity to obstetric staff who sometimes—on grounds of fetal welfare, self-protection from malpractice suits, or mere convenience—manipulate women into compliance in ways that would be considered fraud in any other venue. Without fear of being called to account for it, they can bully, coerce, humiliate, and threaten. And, yes, they can physically mistreat or even sexually assault them—imagine if the Illinois woman’s story occurred outside of an L&D unit,” (Goer, Why are women stripped of their rights during labor and delivery?). When the doctors gain control, they are able to manipulate a woman’s body as they please. This however would not be allowed in a school, where the teacher has control, or even in the home, where the parents have control. Therefore why should pregnant women be forced by the law to undergo a procedure to “save” their child, when no one else is being forced to sacrifice their body for another’s life? These women are experience assault, however the assaulter has no penalty; the people assaulting would have been the ones prosecuting the assaulter in the first place.

            Women give up a lot for their children, however there must come a point where the line is drawn, for women have rights. Court ordered cesareans are unfair to women and should be eliminated because of a woman’s right to make a decision about her body, the harm unnecessary cesareans entail, and the fact that such a sacrifice would never be acceptable in any other situation. A fetus is dependent on its mother; therefore it is subject to her rule, even if doctors feel she is endangering the child. Up until birth, the mother’s life is that for which society must look out for. By looking out for the mother, they should not be forcing unwarranted harm upon her body, which c-sections can bring. Blood clots, infection, bleeding, and injury/death to the fetus are all resulting risks of a c-section that might not have initially been needed. Lastly, the entire process is abuse and sacrifice that is not expected of any other person. Why should a woman’s right be sacrificed because she is with child? Cesareans are by no means bad, but they are harmful when unnecessary. Society needs to reevaluate its priorities and begin to value the life being lived, rather than the life that could live. Court ordered cesareans should be desisted, to ensure the well being of the mother and potentially the child she will bring into the world.

Bibliography

Collier, Lisa. "National Advocates for Pregnant Women: Could You Be Forced to Have a C-section?" National Advocates for Pregnant Women: Welcome to NAPW. Web. 05 Apr. 2011. <http://www.advocatesforpregnantwomen.org/main/publications/articles_and_reports/could_you_be_forced_to_have_a_csection_1.php>.

Goer, Henci. "Why Are Women Stripped of Their Rights during Labor and Delivery?" Blog | Double X. Web. 31 Mar. 2011. <http://www.doublex.com/blog/xxfactor/still-cruel-maternity-wards>.

Irwin, Susan, and Brigette Jordan. "Knowledge, Practice, and Power: Court-Ordered Cesarean Sections." Lifescapes.org. Medical Anthropology Quarterly. Web. 5 Apr. 2011. <http://www.lifescapes.org/Papers/COCS%20Hahn%201987.htm>.

"Maternal vs. Fetal Rights." Santa Clara University - Welcome. Web. 31 Mar. 2011. <http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/iie/v1n2/pregnant.html>.

"Pregnant Women Are Second Class Citizens." Stand and Deliver. Web. 06 Apr. 2011. <http://rixarixa.blogspot.com/2007/06/pregnant-women-are-second-class.html>.

"The Science Creative Quarterly » LEGAL RIGHTS AND THE MATERNAL-FETAL CONFLICT." The Science Creative Quarterly. Web. 31 Mar. 2011. <http://www.scq.ubc.ca/legal-rights-and-the-maternal-fetal-conflict/>.