A tragic case study in possible cognitive dissonance

[Logic please]

While not a religious matter, and acknowledging the tragedy of this case, there were some elements that caught my attention - LINK:

Originally Posted by Herald-sun article extract

Mother did not believe risks associated with a home birth
Marianne Betts | From:Herald Sun | August 08, 2012

A WOMAN who lost her baby boy did not feel she was putting him at harm by attempting a home birth, and doctors had exaggerated dangers to scare her, a coroner's inquest has heard.
...
Ms Thurgood, who had undergone two caesareans, said after internet-based research she believed the risks involved in having a natural birth after a c-section were minimal.
"If I thought there was going to be any risk to Joseph in having a natural birth I would not have considered this option," she said.
Ms Thurgood had planned to have a natural birth at Monash Medical Centre, but at appointments she was repeatedly warned of risks of a deadly uterine rupture occurring.
She felt the figures put to her had been escalated just to scare her, and she requested it not be discussed.
She wanted a birth with minimal intervention, with intravenous lines only being used if necessary, and the foetal heart rate monitored intermittently with a hand-held Doppler, instead of being "tethered" to a machine.

I don't wish to suggest that people don't have any right to home birth, or to make their own assessment of risks and consequent decisions.

What struck me was how readily *teh Dr Google* advice and and info was apparently preferred over the real live experts in the field. In particular, that the expert medical advice was "escalated just to scare", at the same time as figures from the interwebz were regarded as reliable.

It's difficult to escape the thought that "risk assessment" may have been partly driven (and perhaps compromised) by preferred outcome. It was also somewhat reminiscent of the Penelope Dingle case.

And there's an arguable parallel with some kinds of thinking in respect of religion, IMHO. Any thoughts?

[Goldenmane]

Bleeds into Dunning-Kruger, perhaps.

I'm going to get very (apparently) arrogant for a second here. Please bear in mind that I do this to illustrate a point, and I'm infected by some virus, so may also be hallucinating - I haven't been baking, but fuck me if I can't smell hot crusty bread rolls right now.

Anyway, to the arrogance and illustration: I'm hands down one of the smartest motherfuckers I know. I've never had any difficulty grasping difficult ideas, unless they were muddily presented. I can explain to you exactly where almost everyone who says anything about x is wrong, where x is anything.

The problem, of course (and this is what paralyses me so fucking often) is that I don't really have any way of telling if I'm wrong. I know it's possible to lack the capacity to judge - that's Dunning-Kruger - so how do I judge whether I lack the capacity to judge?

Fuck it, I say, and forge on, safe in the knowledge that if I'm wrong I'll be told by my adoring (ha!) public, yet not even be able to realise that it is so.

Sorry, I'm probably making no sense.

[Lilith]

There was a comment a couple of days ago on facecrack where someone claimed to not be ignorant - Though I'm sure they meant that they weren't ignorant in the general sense, rather than the specific one, it sparked a really fun discussion here at our house about how a person would know that they don't not know things..

I always tested high, but the only thing that intelligence has ever meant to me is being able to understand, a little better than some, how much I probably don't understand.

[melbmatt]

Originally Posted by Logic please

What struck me was how readily *teh Dr Google* advice and and info was apparently preferred over the real live experts in the field. In particular, that the expert medical advice was "escalated just to scare", at the same time as figures from the interwebz were regarded as reliable.

This actually doesn’t surprise me that much. It appears to me that the public are regularly subjected to fear mongering through the mainstream media in which we are told the experts cannot be trusted. The 60 minutes story on PIP breast implants (covered by Media Watch on Youtube link below) is a great example. With such dishonest journalism combined with people not investigating the facts themselves from legitimate sources, I can see how people can think such things.

[gruber]

I dont understand homebirth, why would you risk your life and the babies?

[Darwinsbulldog]

Originally Posted by gruber

I dont understand homebirth, why would you risk your life and the babies?

I can understand it in a way. Going to a hospital puts you under total medical control, whaeras in your own home you can insist on some autonomy, and take advice. A lot of hospital protocol has nothing to do with medicine, but a way of processing patients efficiently. And hospitals can be places where resistant strains of bacteria can crop up from time to time.
But of course, some home-birth fanatics don't site these reasons, or have a strong anti-science, anti-medical prejudice.

[the_gelf]

The problem is ,yes, the quality of advice being sought, and the individual not able to discern the difference between reliable, trustable information. It's a failure of society, but seriously where is the husband in all of this?

[Bolero]

Originally Posted by gruber

I dont understand homebirth, why would you risk your life and the babies?

Having been through the birth thing a couple of times, I can well understand the resentment many women feel as a result of (perception or otherwise) being talked down to and controlled by doctors at a time when they are both emotionally and physically vulnerable. The desire to "take control" of the whole process is a strong one.

I know a number of women who've had extremely successful homebirths - not just from the point of view of live healthy babies, but also that of feeling empowered by what can often be a highly traumatic and disempowering experience. I wouldn't do it myself, but can easily understand the desire to feel in control and (at the risk of sounding hippie-ish) natural. When done with the assistance of a professional attending midwife (or doula, who in this country needs to legally be a qualified midwife anyway), it's not as much of a risk as people think.

The woman in the OP story was in an unusual circumstance, whereby the risk was deemed by medical professionals to be too great, but there are a lot of doctors who advise against homebirth fullstop, so her reaction against their advice is not necessarily incomprehensible.... perhaps not necessarily cognitive dissonance, but rather being unable to determine the full extent of the danger, given the number of successful homebirths versus the amount of negative response the concept engenders in the medical profession?

I'm trying to understand this situation, and I think considering her thought processes akin to religious thinking is perhaps barking up the wrong tree (although fully acknowledging that in this particular case she may have been bum-fuck ignorant and/or utterly mad).

[rayne]

Originally Posted by the_gelf

The problem is ,yes, the quality of advice being sought, and the individual not able to discern the difference between reliable, trustable information. It's a failure of society, but seriously where is the husband in all of this?

Single parents do this as well. Though both parties (if there are two) should have a say where the birth is taking place, if a kid is going to pop out..they don't exactly care where and when. Home births and hospital ones both have risks, hospitals have easier access to resources in case something goes wrong. Whichever a person chooses, it's in their best interest to research fully beforehand.