Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T02:04:22.763Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The ‘Midwifery Question’ in Québec: New Problematics of Birth, Body, Self

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 2007

Maria Fannin
Maria Fannin
Affiliation:
School of Geographical Sciences, University of Bristol, University Road, Bristol BS8 1SS, UK E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Scholarship on midwifery in the North American context has tended to evaluate the recent legalization of the professional practice of midwifery across the United States and Canada as evidence of the success of women’s claims to broader reproductive rights concerning pregnancy and birth. This article, however, approaches the efforts to legalize midwifery in North America through the question of claims to reproductive autonomy, arguing that midwifery’s legalization is one effect of the entrance into modern scientific practice and state health policy of a new political subject: one whose emotional satisfaction is the target of reproductive health-care policy. As such, the ‘new’ midwifery in Québec encourages pregnant and birthing women to invest intimately in the project of staking claims for reproductive self-determination. Counter to claims that the ideal citizen of contemporary liberal regimes is ‘unattached and unbiased’, midwifery compels women to invest ‘deep down’ in claims to reproductive self-determination. An examination of policy and activist discourses circulating during the time leading up to the period of experimentation (1993–1998) and eventually to the legalization (1999) of midwifery in Québec provides a useful lens onto broader transformations in the liberal governance of pregnancy and birth.

Keywords

birthCanadamidwiferyobstetricsQuébecreproduction
Type
Articles
Information
BioSocieties , Volume 2 , Issue 2 , June 2007 , pp. 171 - 191
Copyright
Copyright © London School of Economics and Political Science 2007

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

AMC (Association Médicale Canadienne)(1987). Obstétrique 87: Un rapport de l’Association Médicale Canadienne sur les soins obstétricaux au Canada. Ottawa: Association Médicale Canadienne.Google Scholar
Beckett, K., & Hoffman, B. (2005). Challenging medicine: Law, resistance and the cultural politics of childbirth. Law and Society Review, 39, 125–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blais, R., & Joubert, P. (2000). Evaluation of the midwifery pilot projects in Quebec: An overview. Canadian Journal of Public Health, 91, 11–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boilard, H., Gagnon, D., & Séguin, M. (1982). Rapport de la mission en Californie sur les sages-femmes. Québec: Ministère de l’Éducation.Google Scholar
Bouffard, M., & Grégoire, L. (1998). Bilan de l’expérience des hommes et des femmes ayant béneficié des services des sages-femmes dans le cadre des projets-pilotes en maisons de naissance. Montréal: Groupe MAMAN.Google Scholar
Bourgeault, I.L. (1999). Delivering midwifery: The integration of midwifery into the Canadian health care system. Canadian Women’s Health Network, 3. URL (accessed January 2004): http//www.cwhn.ca/network-reseau/2-3/midwifery.htmlGoogle Scholar
Bourgeault, I.L., Benoit, C., & Davis-Floyd, R. (Eds) (2004). Reconceiving midwifery: The ‘new’ Canadian model of care. Montréal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press.Google Scholar
Branch, M. (1990). Midwifery: A new status. Ottawa: Library of Parliament, Research Branch, Political and Social Affairs Division.Google Scholar
Burtch, B. (1994). Trials of labour: The re-emergence of midwifery. Montréal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bynum, W.F. (1994). Science and the practice of medicine in the nineteenth century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Canadian Doula Association (n.d.). History of midwifery in Canada. URL (accessed April 2005): http://www.canadiandoulas.com/history_m.htmGoogle Scholar
Canton, D. (1999). What a blessing she had chloroform: The medical and social response to the pain of childbirth from 1800 to the present. New Haven, CT: Yale UP.Google Scholar
Chouinard, L. (1993). La saga se poursuit dans le dossier des sages-femmes. Le Droit, 13 September, p. 15.Google Scholar
Courchesne, M.-C., Gagnon, D., & Mignon, L. (1982). Rapport de la mission européenne sur les sages-femmes. Québec: Ministère de l’Éducation.Google Scholar
Cruikshank, B. (1999). The will to empower. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis-Floyd, R., & Sargent, C.F. (Eds) (1997). Childbirth and authoritative knowledge. Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dick-Read, G. (2004). Childbirth without fear. London: Pinter & Martin Ltd.Google Scholar
Dunn, K. (1989). Midwives: Operating on law’s edge. The Gazette (Montréal), 15 April.Google Scholar
Fahmy, K. (1998). Women, medicine, and power in nineteenth-century Egypt. In L., Abu-Lughod (Ed.), Remaking women: Feminism and modernity in the Middle East, 35–72. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Fannin, M. (2004). Domesticated space and disciplined bodies: Tracing the emergence of ‘homelike’ birthing rooms. In Katz, C., Marston, S. & Mitchell, K. (Eds), Life’s work, 96–118. London: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Franklin, S. (1995). Postmodern procreation. A cultural account of assisted reproduction. In Ginsburg, F.D. & Rapp, R. (Eds), Conceiving the new world order: The global politics of reproduction, 323–345. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Franklin, S., & Lock, M. (Eds) (2003). Remaking life and death: Toward an anthropology of the biosciences. Santa Fe, TX: School of American Research Press.Google Scholar
Fraser, G.J. (1998). African American midwifery in the South: Dialogues of birth, race, and memory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraser, W., Hatem-Asmar, M., Krauss, I., & Maillard, F. (2000). Comparison of midwifery care to medical care in hospitals in the Quebec pilot projects study: Clinical indicators. Canadian Journal of Public Health, 91, suppl. I, 15–11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Girous, S. (1993). Sages-femmes au Centre Hospitalier de Maria: Les médécins disent non au projet pilote. Le Soleil, 28 May, p. B1.Google Scholar
Gökariksel, B., & Mitchell, K. (2005). Veiling, secularism, and the neoliberal subject: National narratives and supranational desires in Turkey and France. Global Networks, 5, 147–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gordon, C. (1991). Governmental rationality: An introduction. In Burchell, G.Gordon, C. & Miller, P. (Eds), The Foucault effect, 1–51. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hawkins, M., & Knox, S. (2003). The midwifery option: A Canadian guide to the birth experience. Toronto: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
Hélen, I. (2004). Technics over life.: Risk, ethics and the existential condition in high-tech antenatal care. Economy and Society, 33, 28–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
James, S., & Bourgeault, I.L. (2004). To fund or not to fund: The Alberta decision. In Bourgeault, I.L.Benoit, C. & Davis-Floyd, R. (Eds), Reconceiving midwifery: The ‘new’ Canadian model of care, 131–149. Montréal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press.Google Scholar
Kaufert, P., & O’Neil, J.D. (1990). Cooptation and control: The reconstruction of Inuit birth. Medical Anthropology Quarterly, 4, 427–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaufert, P., & Robinson, K. (2004). Midwifery on the prairies: Visionaries and realists in Manitoba. In Davis-Floyd, R.Benoit, C. & Bourgeault, I.L. (Eds), Reconceiving midwifery, 204–219. Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press.Google Scholar
Kornelsen, J., & Carty, E. (2004). Challenges to integration: Interprofessional relationships and the experience of midwifery in British Columbia. In Bourgeault, I.L.Benoit, C. & Davis-Floyd, R. (Eds), Reconceiving midwifery: The ‘new’ Canadian model of care, 111–130. Montréal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press.Google Scholar
L’Association pour la Santé Publique du Québec (2000). La perinatalité Québécoise depuis vingt ans. 2000. Montréal: L’Association pour la Santé Publique du Québec.Google Scholar
Laurin, R. (1993). Le point sur la maison de naissance. Le Droit, 15 April: p. 19.Google Scholar
Le Comité de travail sur la pratique des sages-femmes au Québec (1989). La pratique des sages-femmes: Étude d’un moyen pour atteindre les objectifs en périnatalité. Québec: Ministère de la Santé et des Services Sociaux.Google Scholar
Leboyer, F. (1975). Birth without violence. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.Google Scholar
Loi sur la pratique des sages-femmes dans le cadre de projets-pilotes (1990). LRQ, ch. P-16.1.Google Scholar
Loi sur les sages-femmes (1999). LQ 28, ch. 24.Google Scholar
Maison de naissance Côte-des-Neiges (2004). Présentation des services (pamphlet). Montréal: Maison de naissance Côte-des-Neiges.Google Scholar
Martel, M.-C. (1988). Où accoucher? Canadian Nurse, 84, 34–37.Google Scholar
Memmi, D. (2002). Public–private opposition and biopolitics: A response to Judit Sándor. Social Research, 69, 143–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Memmi, D. (2003). Faire vivre et laisser mourir: Le gouvernement contemporain de la naissance et de la mort. Paris: La Découverte.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ministère de la Santé et Services Sociaux (1990). A reform centred on the citizen/Une réforme axée sur le citoyen. Québec: Ministère de la Santé et Services Sociaux.Google Scholar
Nestel, S. (2000). Delivering subjects: Race, space and the emergence of legalized midwifery in Ontario. Canadian Journal of Law and Society, 15, 187–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nestel, S. (2004). The boundaries of professional belonging: How race has shaped the re-emergence of midwifery in Ontario. In Davis-Floyd, R.Benoit, C. & Bourgeault, I.L. (Eds), Reconceiving midwifery, 287–305. Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press.Google Scholar
Oakley, A. (1993). Essays on women, medicine and health. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
O’Neil, J.D., & Kaufert, P.A. (1995). Irniktakpunga! Sex determination and the Inuit struggle for birthing rights in northern Canada. In Ginsburg, F.D. & Rapp, R. (Eds), Conceiving the new world order: The global politics of reproduction, 59–73. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Ordre des sages-femmes du Québec (2005). La philosophie sage-femme. Ordre des sages-femmes du Québec. URL (accessed March 2007): http://www.osfq.org/lsfq/index_philosophie.htmlGoogle Scholar
Ouimet, M. (1989). Ces sages-femmes dont on parle tant. La Presse (Montréal), 13 May.Google Scholar
Peritz, I. (1989). Québec wants Midwives Law by June. The Gazette (Montréal), 10 May.Google Scholar
Picard, A. (1989). Québec doctors denounce proposed midwifery law. Globe and Mail (Toronto), 11 May.Google Scholar
Rabinow, P., & Rose, N. (2006). Biopower today. BioSocieties, 1, 195–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reinharz, D., Blais, R., Fraser, W.D., Contandriopoulos, A.-P., & L’équipe d’évaluation des projets-pilotes sages-femmes (2000). Cost-effectiveness of midwifery services vs. medical services in Quebec. Canadian Journal of Public Health, 91, suppl. I 12–15.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sandall, J., Bourgeault, I.L., Meijer, W.J., & Schüecking, B.A. (2001). Deciding who cares: Winners and losers in the late twentieth century. In Devries, R.Benoit, C.Van Teijlingen, E.R. & Werde, S. (Eds), Birth by design: Pregnancy, maternity care, and midwifery in North America and Europe, 117–138. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Smith, S.L. (2005). Japanese American midwives: Culture, community and health politics, 1880–1950. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Strathern, M. (2005). Robust knowledge and fragile futures. In Ong, A. & Collier, S.J. (Eds), Global assemblages: Technology, politics and ethics as anthropological problems, 464–481. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Thomas, L.M. (2003). Politics of the womb: Women, reproduction and the state in Kenya. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vadeboncoeur, H. (2004). Delaying legislation: The Québec experiment. In Bourgeault, I.L.Benoit, C. & Davis-Floyd, R. (Eds), Reconceiving midwifery, 91–110. Montréal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press.Google Scholar
Vecchio, D.C. (2006). Merchants, midwives and laboring women: Italian migrants in urban America. Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Waldby, C., & Cooper, M. (2006). The biopolitics of reproduction: Post-Fordist biotechnology and women’s clinical labour. Global Biopolitics Research Group Working Paper No. 15. URL (accessed January 2006): http://www.ioh.uea.ac.uk/biopolitics/wp_15/wp_15.pdfGoogle Scholar
Weir, L. (2006). Pregnancy, risk and biopolitics: On the threshold of the living subject. London and New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wertz, R.W., & Wertz, D.C. (1989). Lying in: A history of childbirth. New Haven, CT and London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar