“Look, one more piece that makes ‘bip’ has been said to me by my friend, commenting on the news: “CIC nanoGUNE has developed a new disruptive technology for safer childbirth that replaces the current monitoring method. It has occurred to me for a long time that in childbirth there is a “non-invasive figure to control at all times the physiological risks in real time” of children, and in passing to mothers, not so innovative: the midwife.

And I couldn't help but remember what Uruguayan physician and researcher Caldeyro Barcia told me about the improper use of fetal cardiotocography he invented himself: “I invented the monitor of the fetus to help those few women with difficulties during childbirth, not to put all the women who give birth in difficulty.”

I do not want to be misunderstood. Obviously, the advancement of technology has greatly favored us, but its improper or abusive use can be as dangerous and harmful as the absence of technology: “Being tied to a mere monitor seems innocuous, but it is the first of all interventions that can come from behind, as it reduces mobility. Medical interventions in childbirth have a cost, risks and should be well justified.” They are words of Laia Casadevall, sister of Castañé. According to him (also the NICE guide), “if pregnancy is normal, the most appropriate way to control the well-being of the fetus is periodic auscultation by manual Doppler”, but

“The problem with this is that it requires the presence of a midwife, “one to one”, and since we do not have enough midwives here, it is the easiest and easiest thing to put an electronic monitor on women, of course, at the expense of their health and experience.” The economic equation had to be equated: to equip delivery rooms with monitors, to save money in midwives.

The nursing union SATSE complains about the midwife ratio of the Public Health System (2 midwives per 10,000 inhabitants in the CAV and Navarra and one per 10,000 inhabitants in the State). Casadevall himself said in this magazine: “The countries that most respect women’s rights are the ones that invest most in midwives.” That is how we are.

Meanwhile, technology continues. Reading the news of CIC nanoGUNE, it seems that this new technology will directly reduce the excessive rate of cesarean sections in many countries, well above the 10% recommended by the WHO, and blames the outdated technology for that too high percentage. But it's not quite that way. What about Cesarean Sections of Excessive Medical Intervention? Or those who do it for the convenience of gynecologists? (see report Be born in working hours published in 2016 by El Parto es Nuestra).

On the other hand, it is estimated that almost a quarter of the deaths of children were due to perinatal asphyxia. And I think. Do they all suffocate in their mother's womb? Now women’s bodies are, in themselves, defective, dangerous… the culprits? Inertia leads us to think that childbirth is a pathological and dangerous fact in our society in general. But can the possible excessive use of synthetic oxytocin be related to these asphyxias? Or the lithotomatic postures in which most women start? With this new technology will women be able to move freely in childbirth? Or does it have to remain attached to a machine?

What has been demonstrated is that a safer delivery, in addition to the presence of said midwife, a good continuation of pregnancy as a preventive measure. And lo and behold, we both have cutbacks. A pregnant woman who is at week 25 (5-6 months), with many consultations removed on account of the pandemic, has not been observed by a face-to-face professional, except for two mandatory ultrasound scans. They call you on the phone once a month to ask you how you are. But calmly, during delivery you will be given electronic and, perhaps, also kiss monitoring. Because health is that now.

“Both mothers and children will benefit from our technological development in childbirth,” explains the head of NanoGUNE Technology Transfer. Let's see if this is the case. But I would like to claim that, before that, there are much more basic demands, which remain without an adequate response, and to which we would take advantage: that the child should not be separated from his mother without any justification (nor by COVID-19, as denounced by El Parto es Nuestra); that it should be attended according to updated protocols and treated with respect; and, in short, that our bodies, decisions and rights be respected.