The Deeply Entrenched Medical Model Approach Although the new edition has devoted space to topics like doulas, birth plans, both editions are very skewed towards the standard Western medicine model of care. The book tells you what to expect at your first prenatal exam and others, listing a barrage of prenatal testing. It does not discuss false-positive rates for many of the prenatal tests available or discuss the very wide range of normal that occurs in pregnancy. The book is very traditional in its treatment of the birth process. The phases of the birthing process seem to confine the birth process into a neat little package. They give typical scenarios and estimates as to how long you can expect each phase to last. But, each pregnancy is different, every woman is unique and every baby is unique… Failure to trust the process and narrow categorization of what is normal leads to unnecessary interventions! This book also presents a total ignorance of (and unfounded bias against) midwives, midwifery, homebirth, and waterbirth and the research detailing the benefits of these for mom and baby. The book constantly portrays pregnancy as a medical condition fraught with potential complications, and as an emergency waiting to happen. One particularly disgusting example is that the authors claim that 1 in 3 pregnancies should be induced or c-sectioned. That is totally outrageous! The World Health Organization recommends that in no area or region should a Cesarean Section rate be higher that 1 in 10 (and even that is a bit high for my sensibilities!) There is no discussion of the fact that in other Western nations, where midwifery is the standard of care, that induction rates, Cesarean rates, and intervention rates of all kinds are fractions of those here in the United States… and with better maternal outcomes and neonatal outcomes! Also there is no mention here that induction can lead to many complications and is one cause of iatrogenic (physician-caused) prematurity. Elsewhere the authors falsely reassure that "cesareans are nearly as safe as vaginal deliveries for the mother" and that "a cesarean carries relatively minor risks". And shortly after making that erroneous assertion, the authors state that "if you have a c-section, your baby will be as safe, and possibly safer, than if you had a vaginal delivery." False! The authors seem to have a very negative view of lay midwives. In fact, they state, "A lay midwife cannot provide you and your baby with optimal care." (p.10) Granted there are some less-than-competent lay midwives out there, but the same goes for certified nurse midwives, family practitioners, and obstetricians. I would dare say that most lay midwives have learned their skills very well and are quite competent in the domain of caring for low risk, healthy pregnant women. Their view of out of hospital births (birth centers or home birth) is inaccurate. Statistics have repeatedly shown better outcomes in these settings. It is offensive, scandalous and fear-mongering to say that "sometimes these births are successful"… IN FACT, MOST OF THE TIME these births are successful. Another wonderful option, water birth, is actively discouraged as being dangerous. There is no valid scientific evidence I know of refute the safety of waterbirth. More evidence of the hospital and medical orientation of the book is the mistaken belief that ALL babies need a 2-3 day hospital stay. Keep Reading: Best Odds Diet & Lack of Sensitivity Return: What To Expect When You're Expecting