My family is about to celebrate the first birthday of our son. The year has gone by so fast, and the approach of this milestone has caused me to recall his birth. One of the questions asked of my wife and me by the hospital was whether we wanted to videotape the birth. We chose not to (my wife does not like the sight of blood, and I do not like the sight of me weeping). Many families however do opt to record the miracle of birth.
Recently, however, many doctors and hospitals have curbed and even halted the practice of recording births on video out of fear that the images might be used as an exhibit in court and become a liability to the doctor. Some doctors have decided not to allow families to videotape the birth itself but do allow families to record other events, such as the mother’s first moments with her child. Doctors must now weigh the difficulty of telling excited, expectant parents that they will not be able to memorialize the baby’s first cry with concern about the issue of potential liability if something goes wrong.
Some argue that if doctors are concerned about liability and frivolous lawsuits, they should welcome video recorders. Videotape offers solid proof of what happens during a procedure such as birth; thus there is less reliance on memories, which often fade over time. Medical records can inaccurately portray a baby’s health throughout the birth, while recording may show dire complications, which occur through no one’s fault. Most parents who wish to record their child’s birth do so to have a keepsake, not to be used as evidence in the event something goes wrong.
Currently the AMA has no guidelines on using video to document deliveries; although some hospitals have developed policies, many simply urge the patient to work it out with the doctor. The tendency in recent years has been to move away from allowing video recording in the delivery room, but perhaps doctors and hospitals should reconsider the potential advantages of allowing the “objective eye” of a video camera.
— J. Kenneth Butera