Dixon’s ethnography on professional midwives in Mexico presents alternative ways of understanding global health. In the introduction, Dixon notes how global health is “a concept, a network, a field of view that determines the stakes and sets the course of action for countries, states, and localities to adopt and follow, with the aim of achieving universal outcomes” (9). While attending a conference for nursing students, she is confronted by the notion that global health is actually something to “do” rather than just a way to make sense of universal health trends. Dixon explores what it means to “do” global health from the perspectives of midwives and how they contribute to an ever expanding pool of medical knowledge. She also suggests, “If midwives are part of the global health process, then they have the potential to change it” (8). I think that it is necessary to prioritize these more holistic methods of care in order to save lives, given how common it is for expecting mothers to have worse health outcomes on account of our tendency to overmedicalize life processes. Dixon touches on this in chapter 3 as she examines the role infrastructure plays in all of this. How could the healthcare paradox she mentions be remedied?