Between “a lot of room for it” and “it doesn't exist”—Advancing and limiting factors of autonomy in birth as perceived by perinatal care practitioners: An interview study in Switzerland

Author:

Rost Michael1ORCID,Stuerner Zelda1,Niles Paulomi2ORCID,Arnold Louisa3

Affiliation:

1. Institute for Biomedical Ethics University of Basel Basel Switzerland

2. Rory Meyers College of Nursing New York University New York USA

3. Institute of Psychology Friedrich‐Schiller University Jena Jena Germany

Abstract

AbstractBackgroundNumerous studies show that negative birth experiences are often related to birthing people's loss of autonomy. We argue that a fetal‐focused decision‐making framework and a maternal–fetal conflict lens are often applied, creating a false dichotomy between autonomy and fetal beneficence. Given the high prevalence of autonomy‐depriving decision‐making, it is important to understand how autonomy can be enhanced.MethodsWe interviewed 15 Swiss perinatal care practitioners (eight midwives, five physicians, and two doulas) and employed reflexive thematic analysis. We offer a reflection on underlying assumptions and researcher positionality.ResultsWe generated two descriptive themes: advancing and limiting factors of autonomy. Numerous subthemes, grouped at the levels of companion, birthing person, practitioners, birthing person–practitioner relationship, and structural determinants are also defined. The most salient advancing factors were practitioners' approaches to decision‐making, antenatal contacts, and structural determinants. The most salient limiting factors were various barriers within birthing people (e.g., expertise, decisional capacity, and awareness of own rights), practitioners' attitudes and behavior, and structural determinants.DiscussionThe actualization of autonomy is multifactorially determined and must be understood against the background of power structures both underlying and inherent to decision‐making in birth. Practitioners attributed a significant proportion of limited autonomy to birthing people themselves. This reinforces a “mother‐blame” narrative that absolves obstetrics of primary responsibility. Practitioners' recognition of their contributions to upholding limits on autonomy should be leveraged to implement training towards rights‐based practice standards. Most importantly, autonomy can only fully materialize if the underlying sociocultural, political, and medical contexts undergo a fundamental change.

Publisher

Wiley

Subject

Obstetrics and Gynecology

Cited by 2 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3