Introduction
Methods
Study Design
Participants
Interviews | |
Providers (n = 15: n = 8 midwives, n = 5 physicians, n = 2 doulas) | |
Age | M = 41.5 (SD = 9.7), Min = 27, Max = 54 |
Gender (woman) | 93.3% |
Work experience (years) | M = 14.5 (SD = 9.6), Min = 1, Max = 34 |
Women (n = 14: n = 3 pre-birth, n = 11 post-birth) | |
Age | M = 35.0 (SD = 4.0), Min = 29, Max = 43 |
Place of birth1 | 71.4% hospital, 14.3% birth center, 14.3% home |
Nr. of previous pregnancies | 50% zero, 50% one |
Survey2 | |
Women (n = 118: n = 79 pre- and post-birth, n = 39 pre-birth) | |
Age | M = 32.0 (SD = 3.95), Min = 21, Max = 45 |
Intended place of birth | 50% hospital, 41% birth center, 7% home, 2% other |
Nr. of previous pregnancies | 51% zero, 31% one, 13% two, 5% more than two |
Recruitment
Study-Tools
Data Analysis
Results
Principal (Dis)approval Rates
Clusters | Specific instances | Quotes |
---|---|---|
Reasons for coercion—Women | ||
Rights | Fetus: right to life and health | But in principle, I think the baby has a right to be protected if the negative consequences are very severe |
Partner: right to have a say | I also think the father needs to have a say when it comes to the child | |
Decisional capacity | Limited or questionable | Since (…) the mother is in exceptional circumstances. She might decide differently if she were not in labour A woman giving birth may not be fully capable of judgement I think we women judge differently during birth, labour, pain than without or afterwards |
Beneficence and Non-maleficence | Fetus: life and health | Because (…) the safety and outcome for the newborn is the top priority!!!! If the child is threatened with harm, this must be avoided. The child cannot stand up for itself |
Mother and fetus: life and health | When it comes to health or a life-threatening situation, whether it's the baby or the mother, I think the doctors have to act The best for mother and child | |
Priority of somatic medical outcomes | Because doctors are principally obliged to save lives | |
Providers | Medical staff also have to be able to "live" with the situation without blaming themselves for not having done everything for mother and child | |
Decisional authority through knowledge or consensus | Knowledge: medical expertise, medical experience | No birthing woman can assess all the factors as good as the professional observing from the outside! Medically, many cannot assess the implications. Especially in a stressful situation I think the midwife or doctor is more experienced and only wants the best for mother and child. With today's information from the internet, many feel they have real knowledge. However, the information is often not correct |
Consensus between staff and accompanying person | If the accompanying person is also involved in the decision-making process possibly yes | |
Protecting the most vulnerable | Advocate of child | If the child is threatened with harm, this must be avoided. The child cannot stand up for itself The child could not choose for itself, so the medical staff should advocate for the child |
Reasons for coercion—Providers | ||
Rights | Fetus: human rights | A child, for example, is a human being as soon as the birthing situation begins and not only when it is born. And that means that human rights also begin with the birthing situation, although the child is not even there yet… if one has the feeling that we have to do this now, because otherwise something bad will happen and the woman does not agree, then we are allowed to still act in the interest of the child I find birth difficult, because the major point for me is a little bit of…, yes, it goes a bit in the direction of child protection. It is not only one patient |
Decisional capacity | Limited or questionable | And with birth it is just, I also think that, pain and also fear, the woman is not even in her normal emotional state, so this might influence her fear and pain. And regarding certain decisions I just ask myself "what about the child?", can she really assess that? |
Beneficence and Non-maleficence | Mother and fetus: life and health | If the child is really at risk. That it would die in the womb at this point But of course it is certainly usually better that you then perhaps make a decision, for the sake of the child, for example |
Priority of somatic medical outcomes | The job is to keep the woman and child alive | |
Providers | The problem is that I myself can't stand to watch and let it happen… Yes, we have to endure it and there's no one there to endure me. So I put it away somewhere so that the outside doesn't notice and inside you're sometimes just happy if you're no longer reminded of it I think, yes, when it is really a matter of life and death or when it is a matter of the child, who is incapable, that is sometimes indicated, because we are also involved, we also have to live with it when we let this woman die and bleed to death. That is also a huge trauma for us. … there are situations where I would do that, because I couldn't live with that trauma either. Bad luck for the woman—I don't know | |
Decisional authority through knowledge and consensus | Knowledge: medical expertise | But if, (…) birth happens very quickly, she is very surprised, she presses her legs together, doesn't let the child come out because she is simply taken by surprise by the situation and there are also… Yes, you can forcibly hold her legs so that the child comes out (…) And in these situations, I think it should be possible, because the staff is clearer-headed at this moment and also knows more that it simply can't be done now, the child simply has to come out now, no matter what kind of crisis situation this woman is in now |
Consensus between staff and accompanying person | If I have a partner there who tells her "look, our baby will die otherwise", then you can also coerce her, yes | |
Protecting the most vulnerable | Advocate of child | Yes, but the woman can express herself, can talk, and the baby cannot talk yet. And that's why the obstetric staff has to talk for the child from time to time |
Reasons against coercion—Women | ||
Rights | Mother: dignity, human rights, parental right to be surrogate DM | She has a right to self-determination, for herself and her child Parents are responsible for themselves and their child. Even anti-vaccinationists are not forced to vaccinate their children. And Jehovah's Witnesses are allowed to forbid blood transfusions on their children, even though lives can be saved by doing so [mistaken belief]. For me, the above question belongs in the same category This is not possible under any circumstances. It violates human rights. As long as she is competent, the woman has the right to decide and should not have to fight for it |
Bodily integrity | It is her body. It does not suddenly become the property of a doctor/midwife etc. when she enters hospital | |
Decisional capacity | Capable of judgement | Because the mother is just as capable of judgement during birth as she is at any other time Yes, if she understands and if she is clear-minded and says: No, I don't want that. Then that should basically be accepted, I think |
Has been fully informed | I assume that she was informed about the consequences and thus consciously says yes to them. Then this should be respected After the expectant mother has been well informed, her decision has to be respected The woman decides. It is always a risk assessment, certain negative consequences are rare and even rarer are mothers who "accept" them. A well-informed and carefully cared for woman will also make the right decision for her and her child. If not, something is wrong and one should ask oneself whether the underlying circumstances might not be good | |
Embodied knowledge | A woman in labour feels what is right Because medical wisdom is not always better than maternal intuition Well, because then the woman has to decide, you have to explain to the woman that it is really dangerous now and then the woman will most likely make the right decision for herself and for her child. Because it is her child. And the mother knows more than the others and of course | |
Non-maleficence | Mother: Harmful Consequences of coercion | Negative consequences due to coercion Coercion can have traumatic consequences Paternalism is violence and can cause long-term trauma |
Responsibility | Mother has to live with consequences | But then she must also bear the consequences Because the woman has to live with this decision all her life |
Mother is responsible | The mother takes responsibility for herself and for her child | |
Systemic flaws | Medical risk assessments possibly wrong | Doctors don't know everything either, [it is] often a weighing of risks |
Interventionist culture in hospitals | I think today caesarean sections are performed too quickly There are far too many interventions I think basically the doctors are also less empathetic first of all, and just look for a quick solution | |
Reasons against coercion—Providers | ||
Rights | Bodily integrity | The woman should have the last word. It is her body and she must be able to decide for herself |
Law: bodily harm | Yes, but I think the episiotomies in the past… well, we often discussed in midwifery training that this is active intentional bodily harm, which would be punishable in any other setting | |
Decisional capacity | Has been fully informed | Yes, if she refuses the procedure despite being informed, then that would have to be accepted And then we see them regularly, document each time that we have informed them with our legal department |
Golden rule | Reciprocity | I personally don't want anything to happen to me that I don't want. (…) That's also how I consider my patients: (…) "well, the same applies to them" |
Responsibility | Mother has to live with consequences | Yes, if the woman wants to bear these consequences, then it is justified [not to force her] |
Mother is responsible | Actually, the woman has to take the responsibility |