The Western World and Mothers
The Western World-Mother Relationship
The maternal mortality ratios are strikingly different for mothers in developing countries such as Uganda and developed nations such as the United States. The question at stake is whether the developed “Western World” should take an active role to help reduce these disparities between nations. There are strong arguments both in favor of, and against, the notion that Western countries should intervene in these countries. What should the relationship be between expectant mothers in developing countries and Western nations?
Kirrin Gill, Rohini Pande, and Anju Malhotra share one perspective on how Western countries should contribute to maternal health care in developing countries by arguing for an increase in Western spending in these countries. They claim that,
“Investments in maternal health continue to fall below what the development community knows is necessary to achieve the benefits of maternal health and the MDG goal for safer maternity. Although there are many other important barriers to improving maternal health—such as access, quality of care, and cost—adequate investment in maternal health is an essential first step to addressing them all.” [43]
Besides claiming that investment is the key to improving maternal health care, they also claim that this investment should come from other countries by saying,
“International development assistance for maternal and neonatal health was estimated to be $664 million in 2003 and $530 million in 2004. Analyses of the outlook for future overseas development funding are mixed, and but they suggest that donor funding will need to increase over 11 times its 2004 level to achieve the $6·1 billion that WHO estimates is needed for 2015.” [44]
According to Gill, Pande, and Malhotra, increasing investment in maternal health care has been effective in past interventions. They claim that,
“A recent study showed that primary care interventions for mothers and neonates, and preventive community-level interventions for newborn children, were highly cost effective for settings in sub-Saharan Africa and southeast Asia where the rates of adult and child mortality are high. Hospital-based interventions were also reported to be cost effective and essential to efforts to substantially reduce maternal and newborn mortality.” [45]
Faye Ginsburg and Rayna Rapp have a different perspective on this issue. They discuss the politics of reproduction and raise some important points concerning the disadvantages of Western intervention. They write that,
“the provision of Western biomedical services is a double-edged sword. While the benefits are undeniable, the spread of medical hegemony, through the introduction of hospital-based birth technologies, for instance, often displaces or compete with indigenous practices and may disorganize or extinguish local forms of knowledge.” [46]
This point is crucial in examining the effects of Western intervention in countries such as Uganda. However, why is it important to preserve local forms of knowledge? I believe that it is important because there will always be women that do not wish to deliver in hospitals for many cultural and economic reasons. If local forms of knowledge are lost, then these women may have no one to aid them in their pregnancy, which puts the mother and child at high risk for morbidity or mortality. Therefore, Western interventions need to build on local forms of knowledge and integrate medical knowledge with cultural practices.
The maternal mortality ratios are strikingly different for mothers in developing countries such as Uganda and developed nations such as the United States. The question at stake is whether the developed “Western World” should take an active role to help reduce these disparities between nations. There are strong arguments both in favor of, and against, the notion that Western countries should intervene in these countries. What should the relationship be between expectant mothers in developing countries and Western nations?
Kirrin Gill, Rohini Pande, and Anju Malhotra share one perspective on how Western countries should contribute to maternal health care in developing countries by arguing for an increase in Western spending in these countries. They claim that,
“Investments in maternal health continue to fall below what the development community knows is necessary to achieve the benefits of maternal health and the MDG goal for safer maternity. Although there are many other important barriers to improving maternal health—such as access, quality of care, and cost—adequate investment in maternal health is an essential first step to addressing them all.” [43]
Besides claiming that investment is the key to improving maternal health care, they also claim that this investment should come from other countries by saying,
“International development assistance for maternal and neonatal health was estimated to be $664 million in 2003 and $530 million in 2004. Analyses of the outlook for future overseas development funding are mixed, and but they suggest that donor funding will need to increase over 11 times its 2004 level to achieve the $6·1 billion that WHO estimates is needed for 2015.” [44]
According to Gill, Pande, and Malhotra, increasing investment in maternal health care has been effective in past interventions. They claim that,
“A recent study showed that primary care interventions for mothers and neonates, and preventive community-level interventions for newborn children, were highly cost effective for settings in sub-Saharan Africa and southeast Asia where the rates of adult and child mortality are high. Hospital-based interventions were also reported to be cost effective and essential to efforts to substantially reduce maternal and newborn mortality.” [45]
Faye Ginsburg and Rayna Rapp have a different perspective on this issue. They discuss the politics of reproduction and raise some important points concerning the disadvantages of Western intervention. They write that,
“the provision of Western biomedical services is a double-edged sword. While the benefits are undeniable, the spread of medical hegemony, through the introduction of hospital-based birth technologies, for instance, often displaces or compete with indigenous practices and may disorganize or extinguish local forms of knowledge.” [46]
This point is crucial in examining the effects of Western intervention in countries such as Uganda. However, why is it important to preserve local forms of knowledge? I believe that it is important because there will always be women that do not wish to deliver in hospitals for many cultural and economic reasons. If local forms of knowledge are lost, then these women may have no one to aid them in their pregnancy, which puts the mother and child at high risk for morbidity or mortality. Therefore, Western interventions need to build on local forms of knowledge and integrate medical knowledge with cultural practices.