Originally Posted by appalled20
“The whole dead baby card irks me because I remember last time I gave birth if I questioned anything my midwife recommended it was "dead baby, dead baby". Like I had to labour on my back with my knees pinned to my chest or dead baby, dead baby, dead baby. And I had to go two days without food or dead baby dead baby dead baby. As though all that matters is a dead baby, as though I don't matter, by virtue of becoming pregnant I am consigned to some kind of secondary status, a type of non person whose views, feelings and ideas are totally unworthy of any kind of consideration.”
From this comment and from others you’ve made in the past, I get the sense that you don’t really think that a mother can consent if her provider is “playing the dead baby card,” that any attempt to “scare” the mother into adopting a particular course of action is a coercive act that opens the provider up to accusations of “birth rape.” If a medical provider performs an intervention without the consent of the patient, that’s a big, big problem. But I don’t think you’re talking about that. You’re talking about a provider who convinces a patient to give consent by stressing the negative consequences that they’re hoping to avoid.
This really disturbed me, and I felt I had to say something, because I do not get that impression from Viola's horrible story at all.
Yes, if negative consequences to a decision are possible, they need to be discussed with the patient as part of informed choice. That does not mean that all ways of bringing them up are perfectly fine and all just part of informed choice. It is totally possible for health care practitioners to use potential negative consequences as a way of shaming or guilting women, and that is not OK. There is such a difference between the attitude of "Unfortunately, there is this potential problem with this course of action which I need to tell you about so that you have the chance to make an informed decision as the adult you are", and "Because this bad thing might happen you are clearly a SELFISH AWFUL WOMAN for even considering this course of action". And, of course, a whole big spectrum in between.
So, when Viola talks about the things that happened to her... well, for starters, I can't see ANY way that labouring in that position or going without food for two days would be necessary for your baby's life or wellbeing. So I can't see how the things they were getting her to do can be justified at all. But, also, it sounds as though what happened to her was above and beyond just 'stressing the negative consequences', and I don't think it right to dismiss her experience, which sounds horrible and abusive.