A few months ago, the public was exposed toA serious charge of sexual harassment against a male 'doula', his name is Michael Hoffman. The role of the doula is to help a pregnant woman with all her needs, provide her with physical and mental support and prepare her for birth. Most of the women involved in the profession come from the female sex, and the reason is clear. Can a man truly understand pregnancy, childbirth and breastfeeding, as a woman who has gone through all these experiences? Whether the answer is positive or negative, one thing is clear: after the case of the allegedly harassing male doula, it is hard to believe that 'dolls' will have more clients.
The only problem is that in the end The prosecutor's office decided not to file an indictment against him, and he was released to his home and back to his occupations.
And it is unpleasant to say, but it is the fault of the doulas themselves.
At first glance, the decision of the prosecutor's office seems scandalous, if not unequivocally delusional. Hadas Steif, a journalist who, among other things, tracks down sex offenders, located at least twenty women who were willing to complain against the doula. From the blog she manages at Demarker we learn about the 'treatments' he performed on them:Ask them to undress completely when they came to him for treatment, how they felt embarrassed, how he touched and caressed, how he stood behind them, and they shrank, ask to be swallowed up inside themselves. "
So how did the prosecutor's office decide to release a man accused of such serious charges? Well, it turns out that in order to prosecute for sexual harassment, it is necessary to prove sexual intent in actions. And this is exactly where the dog is buried, because the doula firmly denies any hint of sexual intent. And as the prosecutor's office explained to Hadas Steif on the Onlife website -
And the saddest part is that the prosecution is right.
Why is she right? Because I assume the doula stays with a professional introvert during the 'treatment'. I don't know if he enjoyed it or not, but the crucial point is that apparently (and I'm relying here on logic and nothing else), he showed no signs of excitement. If he had experienced obvious sexual pleasure, it is quite clear that the women would have reported it as evidence to the police, and then it would have been very easy for the prosecution to decide to prosecute him. But apparently he kept a sealed face throughout the process.
Don't get me wrong. If things were as Hadas Steif described, it is quite possible that he enjoyed the humiliation, the power he had over those women. But even if it was, the whole problem is that being a doula gives him that power, and no one can tell him otherwise.
The sad fact is that as soon as a woman abandons her body to a treatment method that has no defined steps, clear rules of ethics or orderly procedures, she gets exactly that. She gets a doula who can decide to push fingers into her genitals - and there is no doula organization that can say that this is not how it is done. She gets a doula who tells her to undress in front of him. Why? So. Because that's what he heard from some esoteric teacher. ethics? rules? There are none!
As long as the doulas do not organize, consolidate and establish basic rules for doulas and an organization that establishes orderly work procedures, we will continue to hear about such cases, and suspect that there are similar cases that have not even been reported. And when in the advertisement for Shoshana Goldbaum's "Doula birth support course in Jerusalem and Safed" it is written that "The overall concept of this in-depth and serious course is eclectic, according to which no one specific theory surpasses its sister or is promoted as such", what wonder there is a doula who chooses his own theories that women can see as actual sexual harassment?
Unfortunately, I doubt that in the near future we will see a decisive determination of what is and what is a doula, what are the rules of the profession and what is allowed and what is not. This profession seems to me too anchored in gut feelings and various pseudo-scientific beliefs, and it is enough to check the The list of courses offered to doulas To notice that almost all of them also provide classes in Reiki, homeopathy and other treatment methods from complementary medicine... each of which in itself is far from being part of science.
And maybe this is the most important point. When we have to choose between modern medicine and alternative medicine, we are often impressed by the complaints about doctors:They are insensitive, mechanistic, busy and busy. But it's worth remembering that when we go to receive treatment from a qualified doctor, we can know for sure that if he acts improperly, he will be punished. A family doctor who orders you to take off your underwear and bend forward just because you have a runny nose, will be examined with full severity in front of a committee of senior doctors. They may not determine that it is sexual harassment, but they can certainly revoke his license for the rest of his natural life. This is the power of institutionalized medicine, built on tried and tested scientific rules.
Or you can choose alternative medicine. And after the story of the doula, we already know what you might get there.
Note:
It turns out that the doulas also came tosimilar conclusion, and they are trying to bring about the definition of the doula as a professional in perinatal accompaniment, who must follow a certain code established by the International Organization for Doulas and Birth Support Professions. I hope their efforts will be successful.
26 תגובות
This is exactly how I thought it would end.
And by the way, Menachem, your loathing of medicine can be found even in the response where you complained that I attribute such loathing to you.
It is difficult to explain otherwise the blatant lies that appear in it.
comfort:
None of your claims are justified and all the reasons why I said what I said appear in the responses I gave earlier.
I read the entry you brought from Wikipedia long before the comment and it's time for you to read it too.
I guess with a little effort you will find the following sentence there:
"Another study done in 2010 [6] that compared planned home births with hospital births concluded that although there are indeed far fewer medical interventions in home births, Infant mortality in them is three times greater than hospital births. The study examined all planned home births, and not like the previous studies in which births with a qualified midwife or low-risk pregnancies were isolated. However, and in accordance with the studies mentioned earlier, it was found in the study that there was no increase in newborn mortality in home births compared to hospitals when the accompanying midwife was a qualified midwife [1]."
Gali, look how beautiful
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KPcR1ag03Ww
And before you answer me out of the blue, take a look at the data
http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%9C%D7%99%D7%93%D7%AA_%D7%91%D7%99%D7%AA
Where exactly did I show disdain for the medical profession?
Dear Sir, you will apologize for this false defamation.
If anything, you decided on the basis of nothing that
"Birth as a natural process would have continued to exact the same sacrifices."
I showed with scientific tools that this is not the case.
You determined on the basis of nothing that
"I assume that most of us know that thanks to the introduction of medicine into the field of childbirth, the deaths of mothers and babies have decreased significantly."
I showed with scientific tools that this is not the case
You state that
"What need is there to mention hospital bacteria.."
It is necessary:
http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3461183,00.html
If you want to express ignorant opinions on the subject feel free.
But you demonstrated that when you have a problem with scientific information that contradicts your worldview
You resort to slander and extreme reactions (troll) - and I will ask the owner of the website for his strong hand
with such responses in the future.
Thanks
jelly:
And for the sake of historical accuracy - both in relation to Galileo and in relation to me:
Galileo did not fight for free thought.
He tried to publish his free thought and obviously wanted there to be free thought but he fought (up to a certain limit) in defense of the heliocentric theory. That's why the sentence "and nevertheless, we will move" is attributed to him and not the sentence "and nevertheless, our thoughts will be free".
And on what do you base the claim that I am personally against free thinking?
Isn't your irrelevant claim on the subject and the description of my correct words as nonsense an attempt to violate my right to free thinking?
jelly:
It's all a matter of reading comprehension.
I went through my comments again and did not see a single mention of the doula issue.
This is not surprising because I did not intend to refer to the doulas at all.
The point is that you see a hidden agenda in every comment that disagrees with your words.
My agenda is not hidden and as anyone who reads my response to your words with an unbiased eye understands - it originates from your claim that men's involvement in childbirth and pregnancy is a stupid and illegitimate thing because they have not experienced pregnancy and doctors' involvement in these matters is unnecessary because it is a natural process (like death, which is also natural).
I didn't want to be as extreme as you and write that these are nonsense (even though that's what I think), so I just pointed out the importance of the contribution of medicine and men. It will be interesting to read what your response is to these things (which you ignored) and how you reconcile it with your words in the comments I responded to.
Menachem's words came from another place and the claim that the medical profession is "despicable in your eyes" I wrote to him and his ilk and not to you.
The reason for this is that in his demagogic responses he demonstrated such abhorrence (what need is there in mentioning the fact that this is hygiene and a way of life while trying to obscure the fact that the strictness of ala is also the result of medical science and not a "natural" thing? What need is there in mentioning hospital bacteria when it is known that after all The pros and cons Statistics say that in the current state of medicine - birth at home without a certified midwife is more dangerous than birth in a hospital?)
Michael,
You are very extreme in your answers. And it seems to you that everything is a threat to science and that's nonsense.
No one said that the medical profession is despicable. You make the matter of the doulas as a matter of war against alternative medicine and as if there is a risk to conventional medicine. And that's bullshit.
One of the most basic principles in science is free thinking. After all, this is the principle for which Galileo fought in the Inquisition: free thinking! And free thinking means that the church will not force Galileo what to think.
Equally, no one has the right to force anyone to think. And if someone thinks, let's say, that doulas help him, then let him go to doulas. And if someone thinks that herbs help him, then let him go to herbs.
And none of this is at all a threat to science if science is real. Once the science is real nothing is a threat to it! Only if the science is not real, anything even the most fragile is a threat to it and needs to be protected as fiercely as you are protecting it and you need to publish all kinds of stupid articles to save it. Since the reality is not like that, you don't need to brush the science!
comfort:
It's big!
"We need to separate pregnant women with a high health risk from pregnant women with a low health risk."
And how do you make the separation without the medical profession, which is abhorrent in your eyes?
And what about causes of death belongs here?
The fact remains that before the advent of modern medicine, the mortality rates were much higher - both among the babies and among the mothers.
This is what is "natural".
All of human culture is nothing more than a (fairly successful) attempt to make the world better than the "natural" world.
Gali - There is no contradiction between the need for birth assistance, a need that is not necessarily medical, and requirements for training. Like any field of human knowledge, childbirth assistance can also be learned to certify professional people according to clear criteria.
A birth assistant does not have to be a doctor or a nurse, but she must be someone who knows when to call one, and not to give homeopathic medicines instead.
You can also see the statistics of the cause of infant mortality in the 20th century
The majority is related to hygiene, nutrition and lifestyle
http://jn.nutrition.org/content/131/2/401S/F10.large.jpg
Pregnant women with a high health risk should be separated from pregnant women with a low health risk.
The Cochrane study actually strengthens Gali Weinstein's hand - there is no advantage either way between the hospital and home birth for women with low health risk.
http://www2.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab000352.html
It should be noted that precisely in the hospital there is a chance to catch all kinds of unsympathetic bacteria.
I assume that most of us know that thanks to the introduction of medicine into the field of childbirth, the deaths of mothers and babies have decreased significantly.
Childbirth as a natural process would continue to exact the same sacrifices.
Fortunately, some men nevertheless entered the field.
I wonder if such a collection of such sexist and ignorant comments is worth money.
It seems to me much more fascinating than seals or bottle caps...
To Gali Weinstein - it is not certain that most women think like you, and it is interesting to check the issue. Naturally, most women are supposed to give birth to a baby once every two or three years (depending on the ability to breastfeed) for about 20 to 25 years, when some of the babies are destined to die, some are destined to be born damaged, and only some of them will pass the hurdles of nature to a healthy adulthood. In our country, the only population that can be generalized that aspires to the quantitative characteristic of this model is the religious population, especially the ultra-orthodox, which I think you are not one of. However, even in the ultra-Orthodox population, there is no one who accepts natural infant mortality rates, and even when it comes to giving birth to defective babies, they avoid completing the pregnancy (albeit more cautiously and modestly than the general population). Family planning and the prevention of damaged pregnancies are done, yes, by medical means.
Also, naturally, the ability of couples to give birth decreases significantly as their reproductive mechanisms are further from perfection, a reality that most (? - I haven't checked) couples do not accept as the end of the verse. Well, so they don't go to the doctor? After all, even a pill to increase ovulation already takes the pregnancy out of the idyllic naturalness into the reality of labels, dosages, monitoring side effects, etc., not to mention more complex means of fertilization.
And we haven't even talked about the woman's chances of surviving the birth. Even if the woman's chances of going through the birth in peace are also good in nature, they are still far from the norm that modern man expects.
In short, pregnancy and childbirth these days, what to do, are not natural, just like our living environment and our day-to-day occupations and our life aspirations. And those who want to strive for 100% successful births of their children (is there anyone who doesn't?) will turn to the one who will give the optimal answer, to medicine.
Honestly, I don't understand what bothers you so much about the fact that medicine is concerned with both giving birth and curing diseases. The fact that she deals with both fields is because they both require the same scientific knowledge of the human body. And by the way, in both there is an incredible expression of man's altruistic ambitions to help others. But if it still bothers you so much, then call the gynecologist something like "birth priest" (I'm sure you'll find a much better term) and the maternity hospital... ok, a maternity hospital. The main thing is health.
post Scriptum. I can't understand for some reason how a woman can even think of going to a "dula" man, it's simply unimaginable. Go understand women 🙂
Again for the information of the men (who have not been pregnant...),
A pregnant woman is not a sick woman! Pregnancy is not a disease!
Therefore, since pregnancy is not a disease, if the pregnancy is completely normal, then the doctor is not needed at all.
But a pregnant woman suffers from pains and pressures and problems because of the growing belly, the pressures and the fetus kicking her in the face and all.
That's why all the alternative treatments help, like massages and talks and all. Because the doctors can't help, you don't need them!
To commenter 6, I did not write this article and therefore have nothing to do with it.
To the other commenters: In my opinion, the article should not have been published in Science because it has nothing to do with science and medicine and is suitable as a post on the author's personal blog. As a post on Roy's blog, this is a good article because that's how posts are written.
But as soon as it is published in science it already sounds like nonsense, because many posts are not suitable as articles for news sites (and in particular for scientific news sites).
Does that mean that every field in the country deserves criticism, but not the field of complementary medicine?
Father, little by little, you are exaggerating with the absurd articles you publish.
You're going to get hit with a meat libel suit one of these days.
And I have a feeling that this is going to happen with the article by "lawyer" Cezana.
The only demons here areRoey Tsezana and Gali Weinstein.
The poor man was indeed defamed in the press but was never convicted of any crime.
In my opinion, there are passages in the article that can establish a real ground for a defamation claim. And in particular after it has already been decided not to file an indictment against him - for your attention, father, unless you have good insurance.
What puzzles me the most is the question of how a man who supposedly has scientific training from the Technion, who is supposed to be confident in scientific methods of testing and verification, allows himself to reach such far-reaching conclusions (alleged human filth...and more) based on speculations and airy suspicions.
Once again it is proven that today every Arachi Farhi can study and also teach at the university and even at the Technion.
By the way, the forced addition of the word "allegedly" will not stand up to you.
The general picture is of a supposed scientist in the shekel, who has gone to his head and thinks he can also be a lawyer in the shekel.
Maybe everything that Roy Cezana publishes here was also published in the forum in Tafuz,
But there is really no need for everything that Shroi Cezana posts in the Tafoz forum to be posted here.
It's all a hash of the complainants' feelings. With all due respect, would I go to a gynecologist with a testicle problem?? There is absolutely no reason to go to a male doula for childbirth.
In addition, contrary to any ethical or scientific rule and principle, the writer invents a finger in a V to illustrate and discredit the aforementioned doula. None of this has been published.
Prosecutions for moral offenses in Israel today are 90% women.
I think that if there was even a millionth of a chance that the aforementioned doula deviated even a little from what is customary - and what is customary for a woman to do is perhaps more acceptable than what a man would do - he would stand together with Goldblatt and Katsav on trial.
Enough sketching please, and the editor is mainly asked to put his heart on the first two lines.
Response 3- Crazy parody. I liked
Regarding the last sections of the article. It's a hodgepodge of nonsense.
You see that the writer is a man and of course has never been pregnant or given birth.
Pregnancy is a natural process and therefore it does not need a doctor's intervention unless there is a complication in the birth itself. The intervention of the gynecologist is only in the pregnancy tests to make sure that there is no defect in the fetus. But a pregnant woman has many problems, discomfort and during childbirth there are very strong pains (labor). And there is nothing to be done about it except to ease the discomfort with all kinds of massages and sometimes also psychological persuasion and relaxation and all and giving birth by epidural. And this is where the doulas come in, and even if they come with alternative treatments and baths and all kinds of nonsense, it calms pregnant women and makes it easier for them in the last stages of pregnancy until delivery. And the men's discussions here are really funny and ridiculous. Because the doctors simply have nothing to do here, the baby goes out alone!!!
Regarding the sexually harassing doula. He is punished and removed like any sexual harasser.
Roy, every word is in stone.
It might be worth summarizing your article like this: "He who is a donkey eats straw"
... In fact, this is how any article dealing with the growing number of fools seeking these types of treatment should be summed up.
There is an excellent old Jewish story called "The Little Black Bag" that predicts the possible future turn of events:
Separation of the human race into two separate species. (hint... many idiots, few smart)
Evolution will sweep them away already. As long as they stop robbing natural resources and breathing air.
What a delusional writer, if he enjoys himself a lot and even has sexual thoughts in his head, what is the other person's business? The women did everything of their own free will, and the guy enjoyed his job, so what? Why did they set up the thought police and I didn't hear about it?
Avi Blizovsky - The scientist is not suitable for writers with such an accusatory and deadly attitude without an iota of tolerance.