Licqurish Sharon, Evans Alicia
University of Melbourne, Carlton, Vic., Australia.
Australian Catholic University, Fitzroy, Vic., Australia.
Nurs Inq. 2016 Mar;23(1):86-94. doi: 10.1111/nin.12111. Epub 2015 Sep 8.
Within the context of global debates about safety and ethics of supporting women to give birth at home, it is important to analyse documents governing midwifery and obstetric practice and influence decision-making around place of birth. In Australia, the United States and the United Kingdom, relatively small numbers of women choose to give birth at home despite their midwifery colleges' support. In the United States and Australia, the obstetric colleges do not support homebirth and these countries have lower numbers of women who birth at home, compared with the United Kingdom. There are numerous regulatory and industry challenges for midwives attending homebirths. This paper reports on a Foucauldian analysis of Australian obstetric and midwifery colleges' position statements about homebirth, who have conflicting views, with the view to understanding their arguments and underlying assumptions. The documents highlighted tensions between competing discourses of risk and autonomy and differences in academic argument. Opportunities for strengthening their statements are highlighted. The methodology is applicable for future analysis of similar documents governing practice in other countries.
在全球关于支持女性在家分娩的安全性和伦理问题的辩论背景下，分析管理助产和产科实践的文件并影响围绕分娩地点的决策非常重要。在澳大利亚、美国和英国，尽管得到了助产学院的支持，但选择在家分娩的女性数量相对较少。在美国和澳大利亚，产科学院不支持在家分娩，与英国相比，这两个国家在家分娩的女性数量较少。助产士参与家庭分娩面临众多监管和行业挑战。本文报告了对澳大利亚产科和助产学院关于在家分娩的立场声明的福柯式分析，这些声明存在相互冲突的观点，目的是理解他们的论点和潜在假设。这些文件突出了风险与自主权这两种相互竞争的话语之间的紧张关系以及学术论点的差异。还强调了加强其声明的机会。该方法适用于未来对其他国家类似实践管理文件的分析。
