Maternity care providers’ perceptions of women’s autonomy and the law

BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth

Ann Catchlove¹  Bec Jenkinson¹  Kate Young¹  Sue Kruske¹ 

[1] Queensland Centre for Mothers & Babies, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, 4067, Australia

关键词: Health professionals;    Fetal rights;    Maternal rights;    Childbirth;    Maternity care;    Legal accountability;    Decision making;    Autonomy;   

Others  :  1138096
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2393-13-84

 received in 2012-11-12, accepted in 2013-03-27,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background

Like all health care consumers, pregnant women have the right to make autonomous decisions about their medical care. However, this right has created confusion for a number of maternity care stakeholders, particularly in situations when a woman’s decision may lead to increased risk of harm to the fetus. Little is known about care providers’ perceptions of this situation, or of their legal accountability for outcomes experienced in pregnancy and birth. This paper examined maternity care providers’ attitudes and beliefs towards women’s right to make autonomous decisions during pregnancy and birth, and the legal responsibility of professionals for maternal and fetal outcomes.

Methods

Attitudes and beliefs around women’s autonomy and health professionals’ legal accountability were measured in a sample of 336 midwives and doctors from both public and private health sectors in Queensland, Australia, using a questionnaire available online and in paper format. Student’s t-test was used to compare midwives’ and doctors’ responses.

Results

Both maternity care professionals demonstrated a poor understanding of their own legal accountability, and the rights of the woman and her fetus. Midwives and doctors believed the final decision should rest with the woman; however, each also believed that the needs of the woman may be overridden for the safety of the fetus. Doctors believed themselves to be ultimately legally accountable for outcomes experienced in pregnancy and birth, despite the legal position that all health care professionals are responsible only for adverse outcomes caused by their own negligent actions. Interprofessional differences were evident, with midwives and doctors significantly differing in their responses on five of the six items.

Conclusions

Maternity care professionals inconsistently supported women’s right to autonomous decision making during pregnancy and birth. This finding is further complicated by care providers’ poor understanding of legal accountability for outcomes experienced in pregnancy and birth. The findings of this study support the need for guidelines on decision making in pregnancy and birth for maternity care professionals, and for recognition of interprofessional differences in beliefs around the rights of the woman, her fetus and health professionals in order to facilitate collaborative practice.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Kruske et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]ACSQHC: Australian charter of healthcare rights. Sydney: Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care; 2009.
• [2]Burrows J: The parturient woman: can there be room for more than ‘one person with full and equal rights inside a single human skin’*? J Adv Nurs 2001, 33(5):689-695.
• [3]Fentiman LC: The new “fetal protection”: The wrong answer to the crisis of inadequate health care for women and children. Denver Univ Law Rev 2006, 84(2):537-599.
• [4]King PA: Helping women helping children: drug policy and future generations. The Milbank Quarter 1991, 69(4):595-621.
• [5]Klein MC: Many women and providers are unprepared for an evidence-based, educated conversation about birth. J Perinat Educ 2011, 20(4):185.
• [6]Pilley Edwards N: Why can’t women just say no? and does it really matter? Informed choice in maternity care (pp. 1–30). Hampshire: Palgrave MacMillan; 2004.
• [7]Eri TS, Blystad A, Gjengedal E, Blaaka G: ‘Stay home for as long as possible’: Midwives’ priorities and strategies in communicating with first-time mothers in early labour. Midwifery 2011, 27(6):e286-e292.
• [8]Stapleton H, Kirkham M, Thomas G: Qualitative study of evidence based leaflets in maternity care. BMJ (Clinical research ed) 2002, 324(7338):639-643.
• [9]Symon A, Winter C, Donnan PT, Kirkham M: Examining autonomy’s boundaries: a follow-up review of perinatal mortality cases in UK independent midwifery. Birth (Berkeley, Calif) 2010, 37(4):280.
• [10]Behruzi R, Hatem M, Fraser W, Goulet L, Ii M, Misago C: Facilitators and barriers in the humanization of childbirth practice in Japan. BMC pregnancy childbirth 2010, 10(1):25-25. BioMed Central Full Text
• [11]Behruzi R, Hatem M, Goulet L, Fraser W: The facilitating factors and barriers encountered in the adoption of a humanized birth care approach in a highly specialized university affiliated hospital. BMC women’s health 2011, 11(1):53-53. BioMed Central Full Text
• [12]Behruzi R, Hatem M, Goulet L, Fraser W, Leduc N, Misago C: Humanized birth in high risk pregnancy: barriers and facilitating factors. Med Health Care Phil 2010, 13(1):49-58.
• [13]Watson B, Heatley M, Gallois C, Kruske S: An empirical investigation into beliefs about collaborative practice between maternity care providers. Aust Heal Rev 2012.
• [14]Field A: Discovering statistics using SPSS. 3rd edition. London: SAGE Publications Pty Ltd; 2009.
• [15]AHPRA: Annual report of the australian health practitioner agency (AHPRA) and the national boards, 2010–11. Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA): Melbourne; 2011.
• [16]RANZCOG: Locate an obstetrician/gynaecologist. 2011. Retrieved 4 June, 2012, from http://www.ranzcog.edu.au/womens-health/locate-an-obstetriciangynaecologist.html webcite
• [17]RANZCOG: Register of GP obstetricians. 2011. Retrieved 4 June, 2012, from http://www.ranzcog.edu.au/find/gp.shtml webcite
• [18]Staff L, Small K: Collaboration in the labour room - teamwork can make a difference. Paper presented at the Future birth - making a difference workshop. Birth International; 2009.
• [19]NICE: Quick reference guide. Pregnancy and complex social factors. A model for service provision for pregnant women with complex social factors. London: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence; 2010.
• [20]NHMRC: National guidance on collaborative maternity care. National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC): Canberra; 2010.
• [21]Dyer C: Appeal court rules against compulsory caesarean sections. BMJ 1997, 314(7086):993.
• [22]NSW Health: Policy directive: conset to medical treatment - patient information. Doc no. PD2005_406. Sydney: Legal and Legislative Services, NSW Health; 2005.
• [23]Cuttini M, Habiba M, Nilstun T, Donfrancesco S, Garel M, Arnaud C, European Obstetricians Study, G: Patient refusal of emergency cesarean delivery: A study of obstetricians' attitudes in Europe. Obstetrics gynecol 2006, 108(5):1121-1129.
• [24]Newnham H: Mother v fetus: who wins? Australian Midwifery 2003, 16(1):23-26.