**3. Conclusions**

Entities like CREMERJ mirror quite well the thought of the medical category, as well as have the power to influence it. When doctors use their power and establish conditions and limits for their practices and teaching, we are in face of ideologization of practices and knowledge. Even with the pretext of fighting ideologies where they must not intervene, these doctors end up acting and thinking under ideological premises, becoming themselves the target of what they fight.

The scientific work is limited by the scientists' non-scientific ideologies. On behalf of the religion that he/she may profess or beliefs, a scientist can curtail in research, suppressing research topics and problems that oppose his/her religious beliefs. Or, on behalf of a certain political-partisan option, even a social scientist can make harmful corrections of interpretation so that it does not collide with his/her non-scientific ideas. This does not imply that these influences can affect the technical and formal rigor of the scientific research in itself, because the interference happens previously, in the choice of topics and in the definition of investigation problems.

From the anthropological point of view, the data here presented searched for an exercise of understanding the positions of doctors in face of the accusation of being the major accountable ones for the "C-sections epidemic" in Brazil. In their defense, they are grounded on "scientific evidence" supporting that the childbirth is a totally liable to medicalization and that the interference of non-medical professionals, midwives and obstetric nurses, and their techniques, are grounded on "ideologies". However, as it was demonstrated in this work, we can observe that the excessive medicalization of childbirth goes beyond scientific reasons, also based on "ideologies" of a strong conservative nature and lined up with the current civil rights denial policy. This way, we can conclude that science is not neutral nor immune to sociopolitical contexts.

The activists from the humanized childbirth movement, in turn, argue that the C-section is a saving surgery in case of risk for the mother or baby. However, there are also scientific evidence suggesting that the pre-scheduled C-section, when not indicated by clinical reasons, causes three times more maternal deaths than the normal childbirth [39], besides increasing the risk of prematurity and neonatal death [40]. The fact that a great number of C-sections is accomplished in low-risk women and with a higher purchasing power strengthens the idea of the humanized childbirth activists that non-clinical factors influence this choice [41, 42]. These activists base themselves on clinical and epidemiological literature to claim that the relation of maternal deaths following C-sections in low- and middle-income counties like Brazil are 100 times higher than in high-income countries, with up to one third of all babies dying, according to data based on 12 million pregnancies [43]. That is, activists for the humanized childbirth consistently search for scientific arguments to legitimize their certainties. Therefore, even though the "ideology" is undisputed, in the fights for the humanized childbirth the activists use scientific arguments to accuse the doctors of ideological practices in relation to their "preferences" for the cesarean.

Here we observe that the "scientific evidence" becomes an argument of defense and that "ideology" is a category of accusation between the two poles.

The goal of this paper is not to advocate nor to accuse one or the other pole, but rather to evidence interpretations of the common sense both on the part of doctors and activists. Neither is the goal to question the scientific arguments defended by both poles, but rather to assume that one of the functions of social scientists is to diagnose the socially problematic consequences of the scientific development itself. In an exercise of relativization of both poles, one of the major conclusions that this study assumes is that, for the doctors, the preference for the cesarean does not have as a major factor the economic aspects and the comfort of the scheduled procedures, but rather the premise of the total control of the event of the childbirth, thus decreasing the uncertainties related to the unpredictability e of the events that surround it. This premise comes endorsed by the scientificity concerning the difficulty of modern women to give birth in a spontaneous way. The activists for the humanized childbirth, in turn, advocate for an absolute autonomy of the women on their childbirth, even being able, through a document called "childbirth plan", to decide all the procedures that will involve the event, including the accomplishment or not of episiotomy, anesthesia, position of the childbirth, and home childbirth. It can be inferred that some excesses in front of childbirth plans restraining any type of medicalization can make it difficult to make necessary decisions in the defense of the life of the mother and the baby in face of unexpected risks during the childbirth.

Thus, the great challenge is the need of a greater closeness between doctors and activists for the humanized childbirth, without prejudices and rejection from both parts, so that to guarantee the quality of the obstetric assistance. For the childbirth *In the Crossing of Politics With Science: Medical Arguments on the High Rate of Cesarean... DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.97635*

humanizing, an improvement of the relations between health professionals and users of the services is necessary. It is equally necessary significant transformations in the training of new obstetricians in relation to the appreciation of new knowledge and practices; acquisition of a more dialogic and horizontal position of the team with the patients; rediscussion of the excessively biological model of medicine; and adoption of bigger political accountability of the managers, aiming at the improvement of less invasive techniques.
