A couple of weeks ago, the morning after I gave birth to my second child, a particularly
garrulous nurse stopped by my room and asked if I had been given an epidural pain block
during labor. When I told her I hadn't, she was so instantly approving I half-expected her
to slap a gold star on my hospital gown. I had been a good girl, it seemed. My baby would
feed more eagerly and efficiently, I'd be up and around sooner and, my burbly visitor
implied, in the long run I'd feel better about myself.
Did any of this spiel ring true? Not exactly. Not in my experience. My first baby, born
after a 24-hour labor during which I had requested -- O.K., bleated piteously for -- an
epidural, nursed avidly from the moment he breathed air. And I couldn't take credit for a
conscious decision to forgo anesthesia this time; I'd simply been swept downstream by the
sheer force of a shorter, more intense labor. I was glad to have experienced a different
kind of childbirth this time around and grateful not to have been up all night. I was
lucky to have had with me a midwife (and a husband and sister) who made an unmedicated
labor seem possible, without ever implying that it was the True and Only Way. But that is
not to say, as natural childbirth's cheerleaders do, that I was in some way a better
person for it. It's not even to say that without anesthesia I was more alive to the
miracle of birth. Pain concentrates the mind, but what it concentrates the mind on is
pain.
Yet my officious nurse is far from alone in her attitude. True, doctors at a recent
meeting of the American Society of Anesthesiologists reported that more women are now
accepting pain relief in childbirth. Between 1981 and 1997, the percentage of women who
had epidural or spinal injections during labor in large hospitals tripled -- from 22
percent to 66 percent. Yet the same front-page articles that reported these figures -- and
the lessening of guilt they imply -- also recorded the persistent tut-tutting of the
natural childbirth community. This loose alliance of childbirth educators and
control-freak parents makes a fetish of the perfectly orchestrated birth experience. In
their ranks, the commendable drive to wrest control of childbirth from overweening doctors
(the kind who, not so long ago, banned fathers from the delivery room and strapped
laboring women down) devolves into the illusion that women themselves can exert complete
control over what is, in fact, a notoriously unpredictable event, and that those who ask
for pain relief have failed a test of character.
Natural childbirth, according to Ina May Gaskin, the president of the Midwives Alliance of
North America, is "hugely empowering." After a natural birth, she said recently,
"you have so much power you feel you could do anything. Women go on being grateful
for that birth and will go on remembering it as a signal event in their lives that changed
them."
This sort of belief has a long and not especially humane lineage. In 1847, when Dr. James
Young Simpson introduced chloroform as one of the first anesthesias for childbirth,
moralists derided it precisely because it vanquished the pain that women were supposed to
feel as punishment for Eve's transgression. Besides, such critics feared, drugs that
relieved a woman's suffering might also tear away her inhibitions and goad her into some
unspecified erotic display. Chloroform's advocates argued in vain that there was nothing
particularly elevating or even necessary about agony in childbirth; only when Queen
Victoria accepted chloroform for her delivery in 1853 did these objections begin to fade.
One belief that has not faded away, however, is that with anesthesia, a woman misses out
on the peak experience of her life. And certainly, the total knockout hospitals gave our
laboring mothers deprived women of as raw and singular an experience as they are likely to
have. The trouble is that natural-childbirth purists make this sort of claim, even today,
about epidurals, which do not submerge women in twilight sleep or induce anesthesia, but
merely, blessedly, block pain signals from the waist down.
Moreover, all this emphasis on keen awareness means exalting the moment of childbirth as
the moment at which a woman is most authentically, "naturally" a woman, most in
tune with her evolutionary destiny. It supposes that a mother is born -- as her baby is
born -- not made. "The sight and touch of her child provide the natural thrill that
accompanies the reality of possessing a coveted prize," wrote Grantly Dick-Read, the
British obstetrician who was natural childbirth's first popular advocate, "its
greeting cry imprints such joy on her consciousness that for all time she can return to
that sweet music and live again the crowning moment of her life."
Today's natural childbirth purists don't see moral punishment in pain but they do see
moral superiority in refusing pain relief. They do see labor as a kind of performance, for
which a woman can and should rehearse, and in which she can comport herself more or less
admirably. They see it, in other words, as an opportunity to define the self. Maybe they
hold fast to this ideal for the same reason people climb Everest or paraglide in the
Andes. They regard labor as an extreme sport -- an ennobling physical challenge that we
pampered First Worlders are supposed to courageously endure and savor. Spurning the
palliatives of modern medicine is part of the drill, an emblem of virtue. And nobody wants
to be the Sandy Hill Pittman of the delivery room: the whiner, the weakling.
Yet what matters, surely, is not how you get through labor but that you get through it.
What matters is a healthy baby. What matters is all the days and nights that come after.
The strange thing about childbirth is not how much it prepares you for the rest of life,
but how little it does -- how quickly it recedes into memory, how soon the daily work of
rearing a child eclipses it. Walking my crying daughter in the gray hours just before
dawn, the last thing I'm thinking about is how fine it was of me not to have had
anesthesia when I pushed her into the world, and the only accomplishment that makes me
feel powerful, for an instant, is soothing her.
Copyright 1999, The New York Times Magazine
Join the Conversation
Please log in below through Disqus, Twitter or Facebook to participate in the conversation. Your email address, which is required for a Disqus account, will not be publicly displayed. If you sign in with Twitter or Facebook, you have the option of publishing your comments in those streams as well.
Your tax-deductible gift will help bring promising new voices and ideas into our nation's discourse, and help shape the future of vital public policies.
Join the Conversation
Please log in below through Disqus, Twitter or Facebook to participate in the conversation. Your email address, which is required for a Disqus account, will not be publicly displayed. If you sign in with Twitter or Facebook, you have the option of publishing your comments in those streams as well.