The Silent Mother

Esoteric & Historical Gravidity & Parturition

Dr. Grantly Dick-Read: Faith vs. Medicine – Conflict Theory or False Dilemma? Part 2

By Leave a Comment

Before we delve in, a point of clarification: For the purposes of this article, the word faith will have a few different usages. The term will refer to religious faith, faith in god or faith in the religious institutions. Faith will also refer to faith in the physician from the perspective of the patient, as well as faith in one’s self. I am intentionally using the term’s interchangeability because I believe that religious faith is not dissimilar from faith in one’s physician or faith in one’s self which will be elucidated further on.

Roth approaches religion (faith) and medicine from the perspective of conflict. “To the scientists who hold no brief for religion, the ancient antagonism of the church to science is difficult to overlook.”[1] Barbour refers to this as the “conflict thesis”, which he says, “originated in the after math of the Darwinian controversy.”[2] This he also describes as “oversimplified”. The conflict theory neglects to look at any connections faith and medicine may have and assume one correct perspective. I tend do agree with Barbour on this, as does Levin in taking a more nuanced approach to the discussion of faith and medicine.

Barbour refers to this as the “conflict thesis”, which he says, “originated in the after math of the Darwinian controversy.”[2] This he also describes as “oversimplified”. The conflict theory neglects to look at any connections faith and medicine may have and assume one correct perspective. I tend do agree with Barbour on this, as does Levin in taking a more nuanced approach to the discussion of faith and medicine.

According to Roth, “Religion and science do share one common feature that is beyond argument. Each has its own faith, although they are centered in different principles. Religion places faith in there being a Lord of the universe. Science lets its faith repose a dictum of the classical Greeks to the effect that all features of the universe can ultimately be explained by the methods of science […] If both show a propensity to harbor a faith, that fact alone may be ground for collaborative participation in joint endeavors.”[3] The expression of that faith will vary, but at its core, faith is fundamental for people to move through life’s transitions. In this case the context of the transition of pregnancy and childbirth, from individual to mother.

Levin, sees the conflict thesis as a false dichotomy because the literature in various academic fields use their own, somewhat narrow perspectives to argue their points, rather than being in conversation with one another, “the topic of faith and medicine (both terms loosely defined) remains a consistently marginal subject within Western medicine, due in part to the tendency for academicians from divergent fields and disciplines to work at advancing different agendas in isolation from each other.”[4] This lack of interactive conversation leads to the belief that faith and medicine are in their own corners of the boxing ring in an adversarial relationship, rather than being able to see the congruity.

Levin tells us that medicine is a problem for faith and that faith is a problem for medicine. These two meta-approaches mean that “faith engaged through a scientific, or medical-scientific, lens so that insights may be brought to bear on how faith-related constructs contribute to medically defined outcomes.”[5] In other words, the faith of the patient has direct impact on medical treatment and the results of such treatment. Here, I am in accord with Levin’s premise.Faith is a contributing factor to the social determinants of health.

The other meta-approach Levin mentions is that faith is a problem for medicine. This has to do with how the medical provider or medical institution are viewed through a religious lens. “The domain of faith has something to vital to say to and about the domain of medicine, drawing on the understandings of the prophetic role of religion, of theodicy and social justice, and of the way in which divine law defines norms of human actions.”[6]

There is a well-established assumption that secular medical practice supplanted religious responses to illness.[7] I don’t find this to be the case. Faith and the spiritual part of medical practice morphed to inform the structure of medical practice overall and that physicians’ faith is still integral to their practice.  When we look at medicine from a wider perspective, we see any number of issues where faith not only informs medicine but is part of medicine. Issues like end of life care, giving or receiving of blood products, stem cell research or usage, circumcision, vaccines, abortion,birth control, and analgesia during childbirth are only a few highlights of issues commonly described as a conflict between faith and medicine with only one resolution possible.

However, seeing these as conflicts is only one myopic perspective. I’d venture to call it a fallacy of false dilemma. I see another option, that of faith and medicine, with the two as being deeply interconnected.Read’s strong adherence to the dogma which he preaches, and the devotion of his followers bolsters the argument that faith and medicine are truly inseparable.When we start to dig into these issues, we find that they exist at the intersection of medicine and morality where scientific evidence will not sway the believer from their position of faith as evidence to the contrary most often causes the believer to believe more staunchly in their faith.

Even as we look to contemporary discussion over natural childbirth versus a more medically managed model, the argument and counter arguments are still the same. Fundamentally, it becomes a somewhat dogmatic discussion of “I believe” from both sides. The argument becomes that of belief in the self with the inherent trust in nature or belief / faith in medicine and physicians.  Where a person places their faith and trust,be it in self, God or physician, the model and practice of faith is shared while the expression of such faith differs. This interconnectedness, and the parallels contained within, are not seen by Read’s contemporaries, yet the scholarship presents a strong case for it. To understand how Read came to be at the intersection of faith and medicine, we need to first look to the genesis of his ideas.

Next Up: Read’s Origin Story and Background

[1]Roth, N. (1976), The Dichotomy of Man: Religion vs. Science, p. 152

[2]Barbour, I. G. (1997), Religion and Science, historical and contemporary issues, p. 24

[3] Roth, N. (1976), The Dichotomy of Man: Religion vs. Science, p. 153

[4]Levin, J. (2018), The discourse on faith and medicine, a tale of two literatures, p. 267

[5]Levin, J. (2018), The discourse on faith and medicine, a tale of two literatures, p. 269-270

[6]Levin, J. (2018), The discourse on faith and medicine, a tale of two literatures, p. 272

[7]Mann, S. (2016), Physic and divinity: the case of Dr. John Downes MD (1627-1694), p.464

Bibliography, Deena Blumenfeld, The Silent Mother, Dr. Grantly Dick-ReadDownload
Become a Patron!
Do share this article with your friends.

The Revealed Obstetrics of Dr. Grantly Dick-Read and the Entanglement of Faith and Medicine, Part 1

By Leave a Comment

This is the first installment of a multi-part exploration of Dr. Grantly Dick-Read’s valuation of faith over evidence-based medicine. A new installment will be released weekly.

“There is a gulf between the limitation of science and the source of an omniscience which gives life and guides us in the usage of faculties beyond our comprehension.” [1]

-Dr. Grantly Dick-Read

Dr. Grantly Dick-Read

It is a generally accepted trope that science and religion, or in this case, medicine and faith, are on opposing teams; playing the same game but involved in constant rivalry with one another. More recent research proposes that the rivalry between the two sides is not a rivalry as such, but it is more of an interconnected kinship where the two cannot be separated without losing the full scope and context of the discussion involving faith and medicine,especially when we explore other physicians’ relationship with faith, both historically and contemporary.  I will analyze the relationship between medicine and faith in the form of a case study of Dr. Grantly Dick-Read (1890-1959), author of Childbirth Without Fear (1942) as an exemplar of this intersection.

Read coined the term “natural childbirth” in an era when childbirth was moving from home to hospital where it was being medically managed.  Read was a self-styled prophet who claimed to have received his revelation of “Natural Childbirth” from God,and who preached his gospel to mothers throughout the UK and eventually Western Europe, America and South Africa. His ideas, though not truly unique, met with great acclaim from the white, middle class, mothers who used his method in the mid-20th century. Read’s critics and detractors, both past and contemporary, view his theory, method and practice as unscientific, potentially dangerous and contrary to the obstetrical practices at the time.

I propose that the medicine versus faith argument presented by the medical community and by other scholars is incomplete and narrow, not only with regards to Read’s writings but also within the larger conversation of how faith and belief intersect with medicine. Read’s work illustrates the complex nature of this discussion and of the narrowness of the idea that these are incompatible and opposing positions, specifically in the context of pregnancy and childbirth.

Next up: Faith vs. Medicine – Conflict Theory or False Dilemma?

[1]Read, G. D. (1942), Childbirth without fear, p. xv

Bibliography, Deena Blumenfeld, The Silent Mother, Dr. Grantly Dick-ReadDownload
Become a Patron!
Do share this article with your friends.

On Schoolwork and Writing, A Preface to a New Project

By Leave a Comment

Hello my long neglected readers! I have missed you and I have missed writing for you. It’s been a transition time in my personal life and I’ve had to re-prioritize certain things. Now that I’m more settled, I have the ability to get back into my passion project, The Silent Mother. I feel that you deserve a bit of an explanation as to what’s been going on and what’s coming up next.

Back in August of this year, I did a thing that I should have done twenty-some years ago. I went back to school to finish my undergraduate degree. I failed to complete it because I burned out. Burned out on what? Research and writing, believe it or not. Twenty years ago, I didn’t have the skills to speak up and ask for help or to know how to take a break. So, I quit.

As it turns out, I kind of dig this research and writing thing. I have one more semester to go, with only two classes left to finish. From there, my hope is to go to graduate school. I’m in the midst of my application process now. My plan, should it come to fruition, is to study maternal child health, specifically in two arenas: the efficacy of childbirth education and the historical influences on maternity care.

I do love the smell of an old book. Sometimes that smell is called biblichor”.

What does this mean? It means that if we don’t know the history, we don’t know the “why” of how we engage in maternity care. If we don’t know the “why”, we can’t make improvements. The improvements I seek to make are in patient education, physician and nursing education with the results being more effective communication between patients and staff. To do this, moving into graduate school so I have the ability to do research properly, would allow me to help many more families than I do currently with my work at Shining Light.

Wish me luck on my applications! I’m optimistic, but could use all the luck and support I can get.

On Thursday, January 3rd, I’ll begin my new series on Dr. Grantly Dick-Read. For those who don’t know, he is the author of Childbirth Without Fear (1942). He is the doctor who coined the term “natural childbirth”.

What you’ll be reading in the next few months is the senior Capstone paper I wrote while finishing this BA in Religious Studies, entitled The Revealed Obstetrics of Dr. Grantly Dick-Read and the Entanglement of Faith and Medicine. In this serialized release, I’ll explore questions of faith vs. evidence based science in the context of pregnancy and childbirth. By the end of the series, I’ll look to questions on implications for current practices in childbirth education.

I do hope you stay tuned with me every Thursday for a new installment. If you’d like to support my graduate school endeavors, please do consider becoming a patron.

Become a Patron!
Do share this article with your friends.