Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-01T08:00:35.208Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Maternity Patients' Advocates in the 1990s: Changing Debates and New Debaters

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 March 2009

Madeleine H. Shearer
Madeleine H. Shearer
Affiliation:
Birth
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Beginning in the 1960s, the maternity patients' movement in the United States was joined by lay, medical, and political critics who protested the escalating cost, poor and inequitable distribution, and overspecialization of medical care. During the 1970s some goals of the maternity patients' movement were met, including fathers' attendance at birth, care in low intervention birth centers, and keeping the newborn baby with the parents immediately after delivery. At the same time, however, perinatal care became ever more based on new technology, tests, and procedures, some of which were promoted by doctor-developers in continuing education courses and in expert witness testimony at malpractice trials. Primary obstetric units closed while urban and suburban centers advertised new services to people who could pay. In the 1990s the maternity patients' advocates have most of the same complaints as in 1970, as well as many new ones.

Type
Special Section: Obstetric Technology: A Future Perspective
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 7 , Issue 4 , Fall 1991 , pp. 517 - 529
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1991

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

1.Alexander, S., & Keirse, M. J. N. C. Formal risk scoring during pregnancy. In Chalmers, I., Enkin, M. W., & Keirse, M. J. N. C. (eds.), Effective care in pregnancy and childbirth. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press, 1989, 345–65.Google Scholar
2.Arms, S.Immaculate deception. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin, 1975.Google Scholar
3.Baldwin, V.In vitro fertilization. IVF Australia program at United Hospital (news release). Port Chester, NY: United Hospital, 1987.Google Scholar
4.Berger, G. S., Billings, D. B., & Siegel, E.The evaluation of regionalized perinatal health care programs. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 1976, 125, 924–31.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5.Blackwell, R. E., Carr, B. R., & Chang, R. J.Are we exploiting the infertile couple? Fertility and Sterility, 1987, 48, 735–39.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6.Boshier, P. F., & Lucie-Smith, N. P. No claim — no blame: The New Zealand experience. In Chamberlain, G. V. P., Orr, C. J. B., & Sharp, F. (eds.), Litigation and obstetrics and gynaecology. Proceedings of the fourteenth study group of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. London: Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, 1985.Google Scholar
7.Boston Women’s Health Book Collective. Our bodies ourselves. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1973.Google Scholar
8.Boylan, P. C.Active management of labor: Results in Dublin, Houston, London, New Brunswick, Singapore, and Valparaiso. Birth, 1989, 16, 114–18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9.Carroll, J. The doctor who’s afraid of blood. Lorraine Day’s scary anti-AIDS precautions. San Francisco Chronicle, 11 13, 1989, B3.Google Scholar
10.Chalmers, I., Elkin, M. W., & Keirse, M. J. N. C.Effective care in pregnancy and child-birth. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press, 1989.Google Scholar
11.Chamberlain, G. V. P., Orr, C. J. P., & Sharp, F.Litigation and obstetrics and gynaecology. Proceedings of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. London: Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, 1985.Google Scholar
12.Chez, R. The market model in perinatal care. Perinatology/Neonatology, 1984, 03,04, 4.Google Scholar
13. C/SEC, 22 Forest Road, Framingham, MA 01701, U.S.A.Google Scholar
14.Dearing, R., Gordon, H. A., Sohner, D. M., & Weidel, L. C.Marketing women’s health care. Rockville, MD: Aspen Publications, 1987.Google Scholar
15.Dick-Read, G.Principles and practice of natural childbirth. New York: Harper & Row, 1944.Google Scholar
16.Donahue, C. L., Pettigrew, A. H., Young, K., & Ryan, G. M.The closure of maternity services in Massachusetts. Obstetrics and Gynecology, 1977, 50, 280–85.Google ScholarPubMed
17.Englehardt, H. T.Current controversies in obstetrics: Wrongful life and forced fetal surgical procedures. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 1983, 151, 313–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18.Flamm, B. L.Birth after cesarean: The medical facts. New York: Prentice Hall, 1990.Google Scholar
19.Giles, H. R., Isaman, J., Moore, W. J., & Christian, C. D.The Arizona high risk maternal transport system: An initial view. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 1977 128, 400–08.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20.Gill, P. J., & Katz, M.Ambulatory home monitoring of uterine activity. Journal of Obstetrical, Gynecological, and Neonatal Nursing, 1986, 15, 439–42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21.Gluck, L., Wimmer, J., Mannino, F., et al. Neonatal intensive care in community hospitals and remote areas. Clinical Perinatology, 1976, 3, 297–302.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22.Gordon, D., Williams, G., Gout, W., & Green, A.Suburbia: A small obstetric hospital in Brisbane. Medical Journal of Australia, 1978, i, 215–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23.Gordon, R. J.The effect of malpractice insurance on certified nurse midwives: The case of rural Arizona. Journal of Nurse-Midwifery, 1990, 35, 99–106.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
24.Grant, A. Monitoring the fetus during labour. In Chalmers, I., Enkin, M. W., & Keirse, M. J. N. C. (eds.), Effective care in pregnancy and birth. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press, 1989, 846–82.Google Scholar
25.Hall, M., & Chng, P. K. Antenatal care in practice. In Enkin, M. W. & Chalmers, I. (eds.), Effectiveness and satisfaction in antenatal care. London: Spastics International Medical Publications, 1982, 60–68.Google Scholar
26.Hein, H. A.The quality of perinatal care in small hospitals. Journal of the American Medical Association, 1978, 240, 2070–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
27.Hein, H. A.Evaluation of a rural perinatal care system. Pediatrics, 1980, 66, 540–46.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
28.Hobel, C. J., Hyvarinen, M. A., Okada, D. M., & Oh, W.Prenatal and intrapartum high risk screening. I. Prediction of the high risk neonate. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 1973, 1117, 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
29.Hodgkinson, C. P.Challenge and response. Presidential address to the College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Annual Meeting, 1968. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 1968, 101, 1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
30.Hodnett, E. D.A randomized trial of the effects of monitrice support during labor: Mothers’ views two to four weeks postpartum. Birth, 1989, 14, 124–25.Google Scholar
31.Hon, E. H.An introduction to fetal heart rate monitoring. New Haven, CT: Yale Co-operative Corporation, 1971.Google Scholar
32.Jurow, J., & Paul, R.Cesarean delivery for fetal distress without maternal consent. Obstetrics and Gynecology, 1984, 63, 596–97.Google ScholarPubMed
33.Kiely, J. L., Paneth, N., Stein, Z., & Susser, M.Cerebral palsy and newborn care. II. Mortality and neurological impairment in low birthweight infants. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 1981, 23, 650–97.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
34.Klaus, M. H., & Kennell, J. H.Parent-infant bonding. St. Louis, MO: C. V. Mosby, 1982, 56.Google Scholar
35.Kubli, F. W., Hon, E. H., Khazan, A. F., & Takemura, H.Observations on the heart rate and the pH in the human fetus during labor. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 1969, 104, 1190–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
36.Levering, A. Planning ahead to keep your perinatal center from falling behind. Contemporary Ob/Gyn, 1984, 01, 16–18.Google Scholar
37.Lumley, J.The prevention of preterm birth: Unresolved problems and work in progress. Australian Paediatric Journal, 1988, 24, 101, 111.Google ScholarPubMed
38.Mead, M., & Newton, N. Pregnancy, childbirth and outcome: A review of patterns of culture and future research needs. In Richardson, S. A. & Guttmacher, A. F. (eds.), Childbearing: Its social and psychological aspects. Baltimore, MD: Williams & Wilkins, 1967.Google Scholar
39.Merkatz, I. R., & Johnson, D. G.Regionalization of perinatal care for the United States. Clinical Perinatology, 1976, 3, 271–75.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
40.Milos, M.Editorial. Newsletter of the National Organization of Circumcision Information Resource Centers (NOCIRC), 1986, 1, 3.Google Scholar
41.Mohide, P., & Keirse, M. J. N. C. Biophysical assessment of fetal well-being. In Chalmers, I., Enkin, M. W., & Keirse, M. J. N. C. (eds.), Effective care in pregnancy and childbirth, Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press, 1989, 477–92.Google Scholar
42.Mold, J. W., & Stein, H. S.The cascade effect in the clinical care of patients. New England Journal of Medicine, 1986, 314, 512–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
43.Myers, S. A., & Gleischer, N.A successful program to lower the cesarean section rates. New England Journal of Medicine, 1988, 319, 1511–16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
44.Naftulin, D. H., Ware, J. E., & Donnelly, F. A.The Doctor Fox Lecture: A paradigm of educational seduction. Journal of Medical Education, 1973, 48, 630.Google ScholarPubMed
45.Neilson, J., & Grant, A. Ultrasound in pregnancy. In Chalmers, I., Enkin, M. W., & Keirse, M. J. N. C. (eds.), Effective care in pregnancy and childbirth. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press, 1989, 419–39.Google Scholar
46.Nelson, L. J., Buggy, B. P., & Weil, C. J.Forced medical treatment of pregnant women: “Compelling each to live as seems good to the rest.” Hastings Law Journal, 1986,47,703–63.Google Scholar
47.Nocera, J. A father-to-be learns how to hate Lamaze. The San Francisco Chronicle, 08 9, 1984, A17.Google Scholar
48.Oldertz, C.The Swedish patient insurance system. Medico-Legal Journal, 1984, 52, 43–59.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
49.Porreco, R. P.The cesarean is 25 percent and rising. Why? What can be done about it? Birth, 1989, 16, 118–19.Google Scholar
50. Professional Risk Management of California, Inc., 2151 Irving St., San Francisco, CA, 94122, U.S.A.Google Scholar
51.Quilligan, E. J.The obstetric intensive care unit. Hospital Practice, 1972, 7, 161–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
52.Reinhardt, U. Health care for America’s poor: The economics of a hot potato. Princeton Alumni Weekly, 1985, 02 27, 23–25.Google Scholar
53.Reinke, C.Outcomes of the first 527 births at The Birthplace in Seattle. Birth, 1982, 9, 231–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
54.Ryan, G. M. Consolidation of obstetric services: The role of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Technological approaches to obstetrics: Benefits, risks, and alternatives (conference audiotape). San Francisco: Birth, 02 4, 1979.Google Scholar
55.Ryan, G. M., & Fielden, J. G.The closure of maternity services in Massachusetts. Obstetrics and Gynecology, 1978, 52, 369–70.Google ScholarPubMed
56.Ryan, G. M., Gardiner, S. H., James, L. S., et al. Toward improving the outcome of pregnancy. Recommendations of the Committee on Maternal and Perinatal Health. White Plains, NY: National Foundation-March of Dimes, 1976.Google Scholar
57.Schifrin, B. S., Weissman, H., & Wiley, J.Electronic fetal monitoring and obstetrical malpractice. Law, Medicine and Health Care, 1985, 8, 100–05.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
58.Schwartz, W. B., & Komesar, N. D.Doctors, damages and deterrence. An economic view of medical malpractice. New England Journal of Medicine, 1978, 298, 1282–89.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
59.Scully, D., & Bart, P.A funny thing happened on the way to the orifice. American Journal of Sociology, 1973, 78, 1045–50.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
60.Shaw, N. S.Forced labor. New York: Pergamon, 1974.Google Scholar
61.Shearer, M. H.Revelations: A summary and analysis of the NIH Consensus Development Conference on Ultrasound Imaging in Pregnancy. Birth, 1984, 11, 23–31.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
62.Shearer, M. H.When perinatal caregivers enter the insurance business. Birth, 1986,13,151–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
63.Shearer, M. H. Maternity patients’ movements in the United States: 1820–1985. In Chalmers, I., Enkin, M. W., & Keirse, M. J. N. C. (eds.), Effective care in pregnancy and childbirth. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press, 1989, 110–30.Google Scholar
64.Simkin, P.Electronic fetal monitoring: Back to the drawing board. Birth, 1987, 14, 124–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
65.Thoms, H., & Wyatt, R.One-thousand consecutive deliveries under a training for childbirth program. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 1951, 91, 205–09.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
66.Trabin, J. R., & Manko, G. F. The latest data available to the Genetics Institute of Florida indicate that the procedure-related loss rate for chorionic villus sampling (CVS) is comparable to that of amniocentesis. Gainesville, FL: Newsletter of the Genetics Institute, 1988.Google Scholar
67.Usher, R.Changing mortality rates with perinatal intensive care in community hospitals and remote areas. Seminars in Perinatology, 1977, 1, 309–19.Google Scholar
68.Warren, M., & Joy, J. Canada’s health care succeeds where ours doesn’t (letter). New York Times, 02 26, 1990, A18.Google Scholar
69.Williams, R. L.Evaluating the effectiveness of perinatal regionalization in California during the 1970s. Journal of the California Perinatal Association, 1982, 2, 65–71.Google Scholar
70.Williams, R. L., & Hawes, W. E.Cesarean section, fetal monitoring, and perinatal mortality in California. American Journal of Public Health, 1979, 69, 864–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
71.Winslow, G. R.From loyalty to advocacy. A new metaphor for nursing. Hastings Center Report, 1984, 22, 32–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
72.Winslow, G. R. The $60 billion dollar crisis. Business Week, 01 1970, 9.Google Scholar
73.Winslow, G. R. It’s time to operate. Fortune, 01 1970, 19.Google Scholar
74.Winslow, G. R.Doe Oostinga, a minor vs. Queen of the Valley Hospital, General Medical Center, Inc., andElene Chen, M.D. — Pomona, California. Jury Verdicts Weekly, 1986, 30, 23–24.Google Scholar
75.Winslow, G. R. The manufactured crisis: Liability-insurance companies have created a crisis and dumped it on you. Consumer Reports, 08 1986, 544–49.Google Scholar