Feminizing obstetrics or medicalizing midwifery? The discursive constitution of midwifery in Ontario, Canada

Critical Policy Studies

Volumn 4, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 127-145

  Paterson, Stephanie ^a  

^a Dept of Electrical and Computer Engineering   (Canada)

Author keywords

Canada; Discourse coalitions; Midwifery policy; Ontario; Reproductive politics

Indexed keywords

EID: 79958763772     PISSN: 19460171     EISSN: 1946018X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/19460171.2010.490635     Document Type: Article

References (77)

1. Arms, S., 1975. Immaculate deception: a new look at women and childbirth in America. Boston: San Francisco Book Company/Houghton Mifflin Book.
2. Armstrong, P. and Armstrong, H., 2008. About Canada: health care. Halifax and Winnipeg: Fernwood Books.
3. Association of Ontario Midwives, 1986. Submission to the Task Force on the Implementation of Midwifery in Ontario. Toronto: Ontario Ministry of Health.
4. Atkinson, R., 2000. Narratives of policy: the construction of urban problems and urban policy in the official discourse of the British government 1968-1998. Critical social policy, 20 (2), 211-232.
5. Bacchi, C., 1999. Women, policy, and politics: the construction of policy problems. London: Sage Publications.
6. Bacchi, C., 2000. Policy as discourse: what does it mean? Where does it get us? Discourse, 21 (1), 45-57.
7. Bacchi, C., 2005. Discourse, discourse everywhere: subject 'agency' in feminist discourse methodology. Nordic journal of women's studies, 13 (3), 198-209.
8. Bacchi, C., 2009. The issue of intentionality in frame theory: the need for reflexive framing. In: E. Lombardo, P. Meier and M. Verloo, eds. The discursive politics of gender equality: stretching, bending and policymaking. New York: Routledge Press, 19-35.
9. Bacchi, C. and Eveline, J., 2003. Mainstreaming and neoliberalism: a contested relationship. Policy & society, 22 (2), 98-118.
10. Ball, S., 1993. What is policy? Texts, trajectories and toolboxes. Discourse, 13 (2), 10-17.
11. Barrington, E., 1981. The rebirth of an old custom. The Globe and Mail, 4 July.
12. Barrington, E., 1985. Midwifery is catching. Toronto: Vintage Books.
13. Benoit, C., 1997. Professionalizing Canadian midwifery: sociological perspectives. In: F.M. Shroff ed. The new midwifery: reflections on renaissance and regulation. Toronto: Women's Press, 93-114.
14. Benoit, C., Davis-Floyd, R., van Tiejlingen, E.R., Sandall, J. and Miller, J.F., 2001. Designing midwives: a comparison of educational models. In: R. Devries, C. Benoit, E.R. van Teijlingen and S. Wrede, eds. Birth by design: pregnancy, maternity care and midwifery in North America and Europe. New York: Routledge, 139-165.
15. Bessant, J., 2008. From 'harm minimization' to 'zero tolerance' drugs policy in Australia: how the Howard government changed his mind. Policy studies, 29 (2), 197-214.
16. 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), 172-196.
17. Bourgeault, I.L., 2006. Push! The struggle for midwifery in Ontario. Montreal & Kingston: McGill-Queen's University Press.
18. Bourgeault, I.L., Benoit, C. and Davis-Floyd, R., 2004. Introduction. In: I. L Bourgeault, C. Benoit and R. Davis-Floyd, eds. Reconceiving midwifery. Montreal & Kingston: McGill-Queens University Press, 3-14.
19. Bourgeault, I.L., Declercq, E., and Sandall, J., 2001. Changing birth: interest groups and maternity care policy. In: R. Devries, C. Benoit, E. Van Teijlingen and S. Wrede, eds. Birth by design: pregnancy, maternity care, and midwifery in North America and Europe. New York: Routledge, 51-69. Clinical Practise Guidelines for Midwives. Available from http://www.aom.on.ca/files/Communications/ Professional_Guidelines/No_2_-_Physical_Assessment_of_the_Well_ Woman.pdf.
20. College of Midwives of Ontario (CMO), 2008. Annual Report. Toronto: College of Midwives of Ontario.
21. College of Nurses of Ontario, 1986. Submission to the Task Force on the Implementation of Midwifery in Ontario. Toronto: Ontario Ministry of Health.
22. College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, 1985. Submission to the Health Professions Legislative Review. Toronto: Ontario Ministry of Health.
23. College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, 1986. Submission to the Task Force on the Implementation of Midwifery in Ontario. Toronto: Ontario Ministry of Health.
24. Concerned Physicians of Eastern Ontario, 1985. Submission to the Health Professions Legislative Review. Toronto: Ontario Ministry of Health.
25. Coroner's Report, 1982. Ritz Inquest.
26. Coroner's Report, 1984-85. McLaughlin Harris Inquest.
27. Davis-Floyd, R.E., 1992. Birth as an American rite of passage. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
28. Davis-Floyd, R.E. and Davis, E., 1996. Intuition as authoritative knowledge in midwifery and homebirth. Medical anthropology quarterly, 10 (2), 237-269.
29. Davis-Floyd, R.E. and Sargent, C.F., eds., 1997. Childbirth and authoritative knowledge: cross-cultural perspectives. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
30. Daviss, B.A., 1999. From social movement to professional midwifery project: are we throwing the baby out with the bath water? Thesis (MA). Carleton University, Ottawa.
31. Daviss, B.A., 2001. Reforming birth and (re)making midwifery in North America. In: R. DeVries, C. Benoit, E. van Teijlingen and S. Wrede, eds. Birth by design: pregnancy, maternity care, and midwifery in North America and Europe. New York: Routledge, 70-86.
32. Eberts, M., 1987. Report of the Task Force on the Implementation of Midwifery in Ontario. Toronto: Queen's Printer.
33. Fairclough, N., 1992. Discourse and social change. Cambridge: Polity Press.
34. Fischer, F., 2003. Reframing public policy: discursive politics and deliberative practises. Oxford: University of Oxford Press.
35. Hajer, M., 1993. Discourse coalitions and the institutionalization of practice: the case of acid rain in Britain. In: F. Fischer and J. Forester, eds. The argumentative turn in policy analysis and planning. Durham: Duke University Press, 43-76.
36. Hajer, M., 1995. The politics of environmental discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
37. Hajer, M., 2006. Discourse analysis and discourse coalitions. In: M. Van den Brink and T. Metze, eds. Words matter in policy and planning: discourse theory and method in the social sciences. Utrecht: Koninklijk Nederlands Aardrijkskundig Genootschap, 65-74.
38. Hajer, M. and Laws, D., 2006. Ordering through discourse. In: M. Moran, M. Rein and R. Goodin, eds. The Oxford handbook of public policy. New York: Oxford University Press, 251-268. Indications for mandatory discussion, consultation and transfer of care. Available from: http:// www.cmo.on.ca/downloads/communications/standards/G04-Indications%20for%20Mandatory %20Discussion%20Consultation%20and%20Transfer%20Jun00.pdf.
39. James, S., 1997. Regulation: changing the face of midwifery? In: F.M. Shroff, ed. The new midwifery: reflections on renaissance and regulation. Toronto: Women's Press, 181-100.
40. Jordon, B., 1993/1978. Birth in four cultures: a cross-cultural investigation of childbirth in Yucatan, Holland, Sweden and the United States. 4th ed. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.
41. Kenney, S., 2003. Where is gender in agenda setting? Women & politics, 25 (1/2), 179-207.
42. Lang, R., 1972. Birth book. California: Genesis Press.
43. Lay, M., 2000. The rhetoric of midwifery: gender, knowledge, and power. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.
44. Lipovenko, D., 1979. Gynecologist says the use of midwives would be beneficial for mother and child. The Globe and Mail, 10 May, p. T.1A.
45. MacDonald, M., 2006. Gender expectations: natural bodies and natural births in the new midwifery in Canada. Medical anthropology quarterly, 20 (2), 235-256.
46. MacDonald, M., 2007. At work in the field of birth: midwifery narratives of nature, tradition, and home. Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press.
47. Marston, G., 2004. Social policy and discourse analysis. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd.
48. Mason, J., 1990. The trouble with licensing midwives. Ottawa: CRIAW/ICREF.
49. Massey, E., 1993. By her own authority: the scope of midwifery practise under the Ontario Midwifery Act, 1991. Alberta law review, 31, 349-390.
50. McKee, K., 2009. Post-Foucauldian governmentality: what does it offer critical social policy analysis? Critical social policy, 29 (3), 465-486.
51. Midwifery Task Force of Ontario, 1986. Submission to the Task Force on the Implementation of Midwifery in Ontario. Toronto: Ontario Ministry of Health.
52. Midwives Coalition, 1983. First submission to the Health Professions Legislative Review. Toronto: Ontario Ministry of Health.
53. Midwives Coalition, 1985. Third submission to the Health Professions Legislative Review. Toronto: Ontario Ministry of Health.
54. Mucciaroni, G., 1992. The garbage can model and the study of policy making: a critique. Polity, 24 (3), 461-482.
55. Murray, B., 2008. How authoritative texts reinforce the medical model of birth. British journal of midwifery, 16 (4), 212-217.
56. Nestel, S., 2006. Obstructed labour: race and gender in the re-emergence of midwifery. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.
57. Nossiff, R., 1998. Discourse, party, and policy: the case of abortion, 1965-1972. Policy studies journal, 26 (2), 244-256.
58. Ontario Maternity Care Expert Panel (OMCEP), 2006. Maternity care in Ontario 2006: emerging crisis, emerging solutions. Toronto: Ontario Women's Health Council.
59. Ontario Chapter of the College of Family Physicians of Canada, 1986. Submission to the Task Force on the Implementation of Midwifery in Ontario. Toronto: Ontario Ministry of Health.
60. Orsini, M., 2006. Discourses in distress: from 'health promotion' to 'population health' to 'you are responsible for your own health'. In: M. Orsini and M. Smith, eds. Critical policy studies. Vancouver: UBC Press, 347-364.
61. Paul, K., 2009. Discourse analysis: an exploration of methodological issues and a call for methodological courage in the field of policy analysis. Critical policy studies, 3 (2), 240-253.
62. Phillips, S., 1996. Discourse, identity, and voice: feminist contributions to policy studies. In: L. Dobuzinskis, M. Howlett and D. Laycock, eds. Policy studies in Canada: the state of the art. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 242-265. Philosophy of Care. Available from http://www.cmo.on.ca/downloads/communications/standards/ G01-Philosophy%20of%20Midwifery%20care%20Jan94.pdf.
63. Pringle, R. and Watson, S., 1998. 'Women's interests' and the poststructuralist state. In: A. Phillips, ed. Feminism and politics. New York: Oxford University Press, 203-221
64. Sharpe, M., 1997. Ontario midwifery in transition: an exploration of midwives' perceptions of the impact of midwifery legislation in its first year. In: F. Shroff, ed. The new midwifery: reflections on renaissance and regulation. Toronto: Women's Press, 201-244.
65. Sharpe, M., 2004. Exploring legislated midwifery: texts and rulings. In: I.L. Bourgeault, C. Benoit and R. Davis-Floyd, eds. Reconceiving midwifery. Montreal & Kingston: McGill-Queen's University Press, 150-166.
66. Shroff, F.M., 1997. Introduction: midwifery-from rebellion to regulation: the rebirth of an ancient calling. In: F. Shroff, ed. The new midwifery: reflections on renaissance and regulation. Toronto: Women's Press, 15-40.
67. Spoel, P., 2004. The meaning and ethics of informed choice in Canadian midwifery. Paper prepared for Laurentian University. Available from: http://www.inter-disciplinary.net/ptb/mso/hid/hid3/spoel%20paper.pdf [Accessed January 2009].
68. 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), 167-186.
69. Steinberg, M., 1998. Tilting the frame: considerations on collective framing from a discursive turn. Theory and society, 27 (6), 845-872.
70. Taylor, D.W. and Nesday, F., 1994. Midwifery: from parasite to partner in the Ontario health system. Health manpower management, 20 (5), 18-26.
71. TFMO, 1984. 'URGENT!! It's Here. The Time Has Come to Show Our Politicians What We Want!' poster.
72. TFMO, 1985. 'Midwives Under Investigation Need You' poster.
73. Thachuk, A., 2007. Midwifery, informed choice, and reproductive autonomy: a relational approach. Feminism & psychology, 17 (1), 39-56.
74. Uttley, S., 2000. Lone mothers and policy discourse in New Zealand. Journal of social policy, 29 (3), 441-458.
75. Van Wagner, V., 2004. Why legislation? Using regulation to strengthen midwifery. In: I.L. Bourgeault, C. Benoit and R. Davis-Floyd, eds. Reconceiving midwifery. Montreal & Kingston: McGill-Queens University Press, 71-90.
76. Verloo, M., 2001. Another velvet revolution? Gender mainstreaming and the politics of implementation. Vienna: IWM Working Paper No. 5/2001.
77. Verloo, M. and Lombardo, E., 2007. Contested gender equality and policy variety in Europe: introducing a critical frame analysis approach. In: M. Verloo, ed. Multiple meanings of gender equality: a critical frame analysis on gender policies in Europe. Budapest: Central European University, 201-244.