Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T20:11:15.713Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Midwives, Women and the State: (De)Constructing Midwives and Pregnant Women in Ontario, Canada

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 November 2011

Stephanie Paterson
Stephanie Paterson*
Affiliation:
Concordia University
*
Stephanie Paterson, Department of Political Science, Concordia University, 1455 De Maisonneuve Blvd. West, S-H 1225 - 22, Montreal, Quebec, CanadaH3G, 1M8[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Abstract. Ontario's Midwifery Act came into effect on January 1, 1994, at a time of radical health care restructuring, marked by hospital closures and staffing cuts. In addition, feminist backlash was rampant in the popular media. Given these conditions, some have suggested that midwifery legislation was implemented because it aligned with the government's cost-cutting initiatives, while others have suggested that the government was responding to the dissatisfaction with obstetric practice outlined by a well-organized lobby. While these factors were no doubt important in the passing of the legislation, I offer a more critical reading of the policy texts, suggesting that the legislation and its enabling regulations problematize not only costs or client satisfaction but also the knowledge of midwives and the women they serve. In framing the issue as one of public safety, the policy ensemble introduced a new form of birthing expert—the expert midwife—reimposing a hierarchical relationship in the birthing process, serving to reify medical science and to objectify birthing women. In so doing, the legislation potentially silences claims for both professional and reproductive autonomy.

Résumé. La Loi sur les sages-femmes de l'Ontario est entrée en vigueur le premier janvier 1994 au cours d'une période houleuse dans le domaine de la santé qui fut marquée par des fermetures d'hôpitaux et des réductions de la main-d'œuvre. De plus, à cette époque, les médias populaires avaient clairement adopté une position antiféministe. Étant donné cette conjoncture, on proposa dans quelques articles que cette loi fut adoptée parce qu'elle cadrait bien avec les priorités gouvernementales de coupures budgétaires, tandis que d'autres insistèrent que le gouvernement ne faisait que réagir au mécontentement à l'endroit de la pratique obstétricale exprimé par un groupe d'intérêts puissant. Ces facteurs ont sans doute joué un rôle important dans l'adoption de la loi, mais je propose, en contrepartie, une interprétation plus critique des textes de politiques publiques. J'avance que la loi et sa réglementation soulignent une problématique qui va au delà des coûts et de la satisfaction de la clientèle, englobant aussi le savoir des sages-femmes et celui de leurs clientes. En formulant le débat en termes de sécurité publique, la législation a instauré une nouvelle forme d'expertise – l'experte sage-femme – qui réimpose une hiérarchie professionnelle dans le domaine de l'accouchement, ce qui a pour effet de solidifier la position de la médecine traditionnelle et d'objectiver les femmes. Ce faisant, la loi risque de négliger les revendications d'autonomie des professionnelles et des partisanes de l'accouchement naturel.

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique , Volume 44 , Issue 3 , September 2011 , pp. 483 - 505
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Political Science Association 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bacchi, C. 2009a. “The Issue of Intentionality in Frame Theory: The Need for Reflexive Framing.” In The Discursive Politics of Gender Equality Stretching, Bending and Policymaking, eds. Lombardo, E., Meier, P., and Verloo, M.. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bacchi, C. 2009b. Analysing Policy: What's the Problem Representataion to be? Australia: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Bacchi, C. 2000. “Policy as discourse: What does it mean? Where does it get us?” Discourse 21(1): 45–57.Google Scholar
Bacchi, C. 1999. Women, Policy, and Politics: The Construction of Policy Problems. London: Sage Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bacchi, C. and Eveline, J.. 2010. Mainstreaming Politics: Gendering Practices and Feminist Theory. AU: University of Adelaide Press.Google Scholar
Bacchi, C. and Eveline, J.. 2003. “Mainstreaming and Neoliberalism: A Contested Relationship.” Policy & Society 22(2): 98–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benoit, C. 1987. “Uneasy Partners: Midwives and Their Clients.” Canadian Journal of Sociology 12(3): 275–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benoit, C., Davis-Floyd, R., Van Teijlingen, E., Sandal, J. and Miller, J.. 2001. “Designing Midwives: A Comparison of Educational Models.” In Birth By Design: Pregnancy, Maternity Care, and Midwifery in North America and Europe, ed. DeVries, Raymond, Benoit, Cecilia, van Teijlingen, Edwin and Wrede, Sirpa. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Benoit, C. and Davis-Floyd, R.. 2004. “Becoming and Midwife in Canada: Models of Midwifery Education.” In Reconceiving Midwifery, ed. Bourgeault, I.L., Benoit, C. and Davis-Floyd, R.. Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queens University Press.Google Scholar
Biggs, Lesley. 2004. “Rethinking the History of Midwifery in Canada.” In Reconceiving Midwifery. ed. Bourgeault, I.L., Benoit, C. and Davis-Floyd, R.. Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queens University Press.Google Scholar
Bourgeault, I.L. 1996. “Delivering Midwifery: An Examination of the Process and Outcome of the Incorporation of Midwifery in Ontario.” Doctoral dissertation. University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario.Google Scholar
Bourgeault, I.L. 2000. “Delivering the ‘New’ Canadian Midwifery: The Impact on Midwifery of Integration into the Ontario Health Care System.” Sociology of Health and Illness 22 (2): 172–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bourgeault, I.L. 2006. Push! The Struggle for Midwifery in Ontario. Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen's University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bourgeault, I.L., Benoit, C. and Davis-Floyd, R.. 2004. “Introduction.” In Reconceiving Midwifery, ed. Bourgeault, I.L., Benoit, C. and Davis-Floyd, R.. Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen's University Press.Google Scholar
Bourgeault, I.L., Declercq, E., and Sandall, J. 2001. “Changing Birth: Interest Groups and Maternity Care Policy.” In Birth by Design: Pregnancy, Maternity Care, and Midwifery in North America and Europe, eds. Devries, R., Benoit, C., Van Teijlingen, E., Wrede, S.. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Burtch, B., ed. 1994. Trails of Labour: The Re-Emergence of Midwifery. Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen's University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Code, L. 1991. What Can She Know? Feminist Theory and the Construction of Knowledge. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
College of Midwives of Ontario (CMO). http://www.cmo.on.caGoogle Scholar
College of Midwives of Ontario. 1994. Philosophy of Midwifery Care in Ontario.Google Scholar
College of Midwives of Ontario. 2008. Annual Report. Toronto: College of Midwives of Ontario.Google Scholar
Davis-Floyd, R.E. 1992. Birth as an American Rite of Passage. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Davis-Floyd, R.E. and Davis, E.. 1996. “Intuition as Authoritative Knowledge in Midwifery and Homebirth.” Medical Anthropology Quarterly 10(2): 237–69.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Davis-Floyd, R.E. and Sargent, C.F.. 1996. “The Social Production of Authoritative Knowledge in Pregnancy and Childbirth.” Medical Anthropology Quarterly 10(2): 111–20.Google ScholarPubMed
Davis-Floyd, R.E. and Sargent, C.F., eds. 1997. Childbirth and Authoritative Knowledge: Cross-Cultural Perspectives. Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daviss, B.A. 1999. “From Social Movement to Professional Midwifery Project: Are We Throwing the Baby Out with the Bath Water?” Master's thesis. Carleton University. Ottawa, Ontario.Google Scholar
Daviss, B.A. 2001. “Reforming Birth and (Re)Making Midwifery in North America.” In Birth By Design: Pregnancy, Maternity Care, and Midwifery in North America and Europe, ed. DeVries, Raymond, Benoit, Cecilia, van Teijlingen, Edwin and Wrede, Sirpa. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Dean, M. 1999. Governmentality: Power and Rule in Modern Society. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Eberts, M., Schwartz, A., Edney, R., and Kaufman, K.. 1987. “Report of the Task Force on the Implementation of Midwifery in Ontario.” Toronto: Queen's Printer.Google Scholar
Fairclough, N. 1992. Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Fairclough, N. 1995. Critical Discourse Analysis. New York: Longman Group.Google Scholar
Fischer, F. 2003. Reframing Public Policy: Discursive Politics and Deliberative Practice. Oxford: University of Oxford Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, F. and Forester, J., eds. 1993. The Argumentative Turn in Policy Analysis and Planning. Durham NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Forester, J. 1993. Critical Theory, Public Policy, and Planning Practice: Toward a Critical Pragmatism. New York: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Giacomini, M.K. and Peters, M.A.. 1994. “Beyond ‘Financial Incentives’: How Stakeholders Interpret Ontario's Funding Structure for Midwifery.” Canadian Public Administration 41(4): 553–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Government of Ontario. 1991. Midwifery Act. Available at: http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_91m31_e.htmGoogle Scholar
Government of Ontario. 1991. Regulated Health Professions Act. Available at: http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_91r18_e.htmGoogle Scholar
Hajer, M. 1993. “Discourse Coalitions and the Institutionalization of Practice: The Case of Acid Rain in Britain.” In The Argumentative Turn in Policy Analysis and Planning, ed. Fischer, F. and Forester, J.. Durham NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Hajer, M. 1995. The Politics of Environmental Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hajer, M. 2002. “Discourse Analysis and the Study of Policy Making.” European Political Science 2(1): 61–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hajer, M. 2003. “A Frame in the Fields: Policymaking and the Reinvention of Politics.” In Deliberative Policy Analysis: Understanding Governance in the Network Society, ed. Hajer, M. and Wagonaar, H.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hajer, M. and Laws, D.. 2006. “Ordering Through Discourse.” In The Oxford Handbook of Public Policy, eds. Moran, M., Rein, M., and Goodin, R.. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
James, S. 1997. “Regulation: Changing the Face of Midwifery?” In The New Midwifery: Reflections on Renaissance and Regulation, ed. Shroff, F.M.. Toronto: Women's Press.Google Scholar
Lay, M. 2000. The Rhetoric of Midwifery: Gender, Knowledge, and Power. New Brunswick NJ: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
Lippman, A. 1999. “Choice is a Risk to Women's Health.” Health, Risk & Society 1(3): 281–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lombardo, E., Meier, P. and Verloo, M.. 2009. The Discursive Politics of Gender Equality: Stretching, Bending and Policy Making. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacDonald, M. 2006. “Gender Expectations: Natural Bodies and Natural Births in the New Midwifery in Canada.” Medical Anthropology Quarterly 20(2): 235–56.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
MacDonald, M. 2007. At Work in the Field of Birth: Midwifery Narratives of Nature, Tradition, and Home. Nashville TN: Vanderbilt University Press.Google Scholar
MacDonald, M. and Bourgeault, I.. 2009. “The Ontario Midwifery Model of Care.” In Birth Models that Work, ed. Davis-Floyd, R., Barclay, L., Daviss, B.A. and Tritten, J.. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Marston, G. 2004. Social Policy and Discourse Analysis. Aldershot UK: Ashgate Publishing.Google Scholar
Mason, J. 1990. The Trouble with Licensing Midwives. Ottawa: CRIAW/ICREF.Google Scholar
Massey, E. 1993. “By Her Own Authority: The Scope of Midwifery Practice under the Ontario Midwifery Act, 1991.” Alberta Law Review 31(2): 1–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meier, P. 2008. “Critical Frame Analysis of EU Gender Equality Policies: New Perspectives on the Substantive Representation of Women.” Representation 44(2): 155–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchinson, W. 1993. “The Medical Treatment of Women.” In Changing Patterns: Women in Canada, ed. Burt, S., Code, L. and Dorney, L.. Toronto: McCleland & Stewart.Google Scholar
Mitchinson, W. 2002. Giving Birth in Canada, 1900–1950. 2nd ed.Toronto: University of Toronto Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murray, Davis B. 2008. “How Authoritative Texts Reinforce the Medical Model of Birth.” British Journal of Midwifery 16(4): 212–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nestel, S. 2000. “Delivering Subjects: Race, Space, and the Emergence of Legalized Midwifery.” Canadian Journal of Law and Society 15 (2): 187–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nestel, S. 2006. Obstructed Labour: Race and Gender in the Re-Emergence of Midwifery. Vancouver: UBC Press.Google Scholar
Office of the Chief Coroner. 1982. Verdict Report: Ritz Inquest. Toronto, Ontario.Google Scholar
Office of the Chief Coroner. 1985. Verdict Report: McLaughlin-Harris Inquest. Toronto, Ontario.Google Scholar
Ontario Maternity Care Expert Panel. 2006. Emerging Crisis, Emerging Solutions. Toronto: Ontario Women's Health Council.Google Scholar
Paterson, S. 2010. “Feminizing Obstetrics or Medicalizing Midwifery? The Discursive Constitution of Midwifery in Ontario.” Critical Policy Studies 4(2): 127–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rushing, B. 1993. “Ideology in the Reemergence of North American Midwifery.” Work and Occupations 20(1): 20–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, A. 1989. “Recommendations of the Health Professions Legislation Review.” In Striking a New Balance: A Blueprint for the Regulation of Ontario's Health Professions. Toronto: Queen's Printer.Google Scholar
Sharpe, M. 1997. “Ontario Midwifery in Transition: An Exploration of Midwives' Perceptions of the Impact of Midwifery Legislation in its First Year.” In The New Midwifery: Reflections on Renaissance and Regulation, ed. Shroff, F.. Toronto: Women's Press.Google Scholar
Sharpe, M. 2004a. “Exploring Legislated Midwifery: Texts and Rulings.” In Reconceiving Midwifery, ed. Bourgeault, I.L., Benoit, C. and Davis-Floyd, R.. Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen's University Press.Google Scholar
Sharpe, M. 2004b. “Intimate Business: Woman-Midwife Relationships in Ontario, Canada.” Doctoral dissertation: University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario.Google Scholar
Shroff, F.M. 1997a. “Introduction: The Rebirth of an Ancient Calling.” In The New Midwifery: Reflections on Renaissance and Regulation, ed. Shroff, F.M.. Toronto: Canadian Scholars Press.Google Scholar
Shroff, F.M. 1997b. “All Petals of the Flower: Celebrating the Diversity of Ontario's Birthing Women within First-Year Midwifery Curriculum.” In The New Midwifery: Reflections on Renaissance and Regulation, ed. Shroff, F.M.. Toronto: Canadian Scholars Press.Google Scholar
Snow, David A. and Benford, Robert D.. 1988. “Ideology, Frame Resonance, and Participant Mobilization.” International Social Movement Research 1: 197–217.Google Scholar
Spoel, P. 2004. “The Meaning and Ethics of Informed Choice in Canadian Midwifery.” Paper prepared for Laurentian University. Available at: http://www.inter-disciplinary.net/ptb/mso/hid/hid3/spoel%20paper.pdfGoogle Scholar
Spoel, P. and James, S.. 2006. “Negotiating Public and Professional Interests: A Rhetorical Analysis of the Debate Concerning the Regulation of Midwifery in Ontario, Canada.” Journal of Medical Humanities 27 (3): 167–86.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Taylor, D.W. and Nesdoly, F.. 1994. “Midwifery: From Parasite to Partner in the Ontario Health System.” Health Manpower Management 20(5): 18–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thachuk, A. 2007. “Midwifery, Informed Choice, and Reproductive Autonomy: A Relational Approach.” Feminism & Psychology 17(1): 39–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Wagner, V. 2004. “Why Legislation? Using Regulation to Strengthen Midwifery.” In Reconceiving Midwifery, ed. Bourgeault, I.L., Benoit, C. and Davis-Floyd, R.. Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queens University PressGoogle Scholar
Verloo, M. 2005. “Mainstreaming Gender Equality in Europe: A Critical Frame Analysis.” The Greek Review of Social Research 117 (B): 11–32.Google Scholar
Verloo, M. and Lombardo, E.. 2007. “Contested Gender Equality and Policy Variety in Europe: Introducing a Critical Frame Analysis Approach.” In Multiple Meanings of Gender Equality: A Critical Frame Analysis on Gender Policies in Europe, ed. Verloo, M.. Budapest: Central European University.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weir, L. 2006. Pregnancy, Risk and Biopolitics: On the Threshold of the Living Subject. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar