Abstract
This article examines one of the relevant concepts in the current debate on home birth—autonomy in place of birth—and its uses in general language, ethics, and childbirth health care literature. International discussion on childbirth services. A concept analysis guided by the model of Walker and Avant. The authors suggest that autonomy in the context of choosing place of birth is defined by three main attributes: information, capacity and freedom; given the antecedent of not harming others, and the consequences of accountability for the outcome. Model, borderline and contrary cases of autonomy in place of birth are presented. A woman choosing place of birth is autonomous if she receives all relevant information on available choices, risks and benefits, is capable of understanding and processing the information and choosing place of birth in the absence of coercion, provided she intends no harm to others and is accountable for the outcome. The attributes of the definition can serve as a useful tool for pregnant women, midwives, and other health professionals in contemplating their moral status and discussing place of birth.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
*American Academy of Pediatrics—Committee on Fetus and Newborn. 2013. Policy statement: Planned home birth. Pediatrics 131: 1016. doi:10.1542/peds.2013-0575.
*American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists - Committee on Obstetric Practice. 2011. Committee opinion no. 476: Planned home birth. Obstetrics and Gynecology 117(2 Pt 1): 425–428. doi:10.1097/AOG.0b013e31820eee20.
*Armstrong, E.M. 2010. Home birth matters-for all women. Journal of Perinatal Education 19: 8–11. doi:10.1624/105812410x482329.
Árnason, V. 2003. Siðfræði lífs og dauða: Erfiðar ákvarðanir í heilbrigðisþjónustu [Ethics of life and death: Difficult decisions in health care], 2nd ed. Reykjavík: Háskólaútgáfan.
Association for Improvements in the Maternity Services. 2012. Home birth: Booking a home birth. http://www.aims.org.uk/homebirthUpdated.htm#bookingAHomeBirth. Accessed 5 Sept 2014.
Autonomy [Definition]. n.d. In Merriam-Webster.com. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/autonomy. Accessed 5 Sept 2014.
Autonomy [Synonyms]. n.d. In Merriam-Webster.com. http://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/autonomy. Accessed 5 Sept 2014.
Barnaverndarlög. 2002. [Child Protection Act] no. 80/2002.
Beauchamp, T.L. 2003. Ethical theory and bioethics. In Contemporary issues in bioethics, 6th ed, ed. T.L. Beauchamp, and L. Walters, 1–37. Belmont: Wadsworth.
Berg, M., O.A. Olafsdottir, and I. Lundgren. 2012. A midwifery model of woman-centred childbirth care—In Swedish and Icelandic settings. Sexual & Reproductive Healthcare 3: 79–87. doi:10.1016/j.srhc.2012.03.001.
Blackburn, S. 1994. The oxford dictionary of philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Brocklehurst, P., P. Hardy, J. Hollowell, L. Linsell, A. Macfarlane, C. McCourt, N. Marlow, A. Miller, M. Newburn, S. Petrou, D. Puddicombe, M. Redshaw, R. Rowe, J. Sandall, L. Silverton, and M. Stewart. 2011. Perinatal and maternal outcomes by planned place of birth for healthy women with low risk pregnancies: The birthplace in England national prospective cohort study. BMJ 343: d7400. doi:10.1136/bmj.d7400.
*Chervenak, F.A., L.B. McCullough, and B. Arabin. 2011. Obstetric ethics: An essential dimension of planned home birth. Obstetrics and Gynecology 117: 1183–1187. doi:10.1097/AOG.0b013e3182172a97.
*Craven, C. 2005. Claiming respectable American motherhood: Homebirth mothers, medical officials, and the state. Medical Anthropology Quarterly 19: 194–215.
de Jonge, A., J.A.J.M. Mesman, J. Manniën, J.J. Zwart, J. van Dillen, and J. van Roosmalen. 2013. Severe adverse maternal outcomes among low risk women with planned home versus hospital births in the Netherlands: Nationwide cohort study. BMJ 346: 1. doi:10.1136/bmj.f3263.
Dworkin, G. 1988. The theory and practice of autonomy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
*Ecker, J., and H. Minkoff. 2011. Home birth: What are physicians’ ethical obligations when patient choices may carry increased risk? Obstetrics and Gynecology 117: 1179–1182. doi:10.1097/AOG.0b013e3182167413.
Grunebaum, A., L.B. McCullough, K.J. Sapra, R.L. Brent, M.I. Levene, B. Arabin, and F.A. Chervenak. 2013. Apgar score of 0 at 5 minutes and neonatal seizures or serious neurologic dysfunction in relation to birth setting. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 209: 323.e1–6. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2013.06.025.
*Hadjigeorgiou, E., C. Kouta, E. Papastavrou, I. Papadopoulos, and L.B. Martensson. 2012. Women’s perceptions of their right to choose the place of childbirth: An integrative review. Midwifery 28: 380–390. doi:10.1016/j.midw.2011.05.006.
Harding, D. 2000. Making choices in childbirth. In The new midwifery: Science and sensitivity in practice, ed. L.A. Page, and P. Percival, 71–85. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone.
*Hendrix, M., M. Van Horck, D. Moreta, F. Nieman, M. Nieuwenhuijze, J. Severens, and J. Nijhuis. 2009. Why women do not accept randomisation for place of birth: Feasibility of a RCT in the Netherlands. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 116: 537–542. discussion 542–534.
International Confederation of Midwives. 2011. Bill of rights for women and midwives. The Netherlands: International Confederation of Midwives.
James, W. 1897. The will to believe, and other essays in popular philosophy. http://www.gutenberg.org/files/26659/26659-h/26659-h.htm. Accessed 5 Sept 2014.
*Jouhki, M.R. 2012. Choosing homebirth—The women’s perspective. Women and Birth 25: e56–e61. doi:10.1016/j.wombi.2011.10.002.
Kant, I. 1981. Grounding for the metaphysics of morals. Trans. J.W. Ellington. Cambridge: Hackett. (Original work published 1785).
*Ketler, S.K. 2001. The rebirth of informed consent: A cultural analysis of the informed consent doctrine after Schreiber v. Physicians Insurance Co. of Wisconsin. Northwestern University Law Review 95: 1029–1056.
*Kitzinger, S. 2008. Letter from Europe: Home birth, midwives, and doulas. Birth 35: 250–252. doi:10.1111/j.1523-536X.2008.00249.x.
*Kukla, R., M. Kuppermann, M. Little, A.D. Lyerly, L.M. Mitchell, E.M. Armstrong, and L. Harris. 2009. Finding autonomy in birth. Bioethics 23: 1–8.
Lindgren, H., H. Kjaergaard, O.A. Olafsdottir, and E. Blix. 2014. Praxis and guidelines for planned homebirths in the Nordic countries—An overview. Sexual & Reproductive Healthcare 5: 3–8. doi:10.1016/j.srhc.2013.12.002.
*Lindgren, H.E., I.M. Hildingsson, K. Christensson, and I.J. Radestad. 2008. Transfers in planned home births related to midwife availability and continuity: A nationwide population-based study. Birth 35: 9–15. doi:10.1111/j.1523-536X.2007.00206.x.
*Lindgren, H.E., I.J. Radestad, K. Christensson, K. Wally-Bystrom, and I.M. Hildingsson. 2010. Perceptions of risk and risk management among 735 women who opted for a home birth. Midwifery 26: 163–172. doi:10.1016/j.midw.2008.04.010.
*Lothian, J.A. 2013. Being safe: Making the decision to have a planned home birth in the United States. Journal of Clinical Ethics 24: 266–275.
*Lupton, D. 2012. ‘Precious cargo’: Foetal subjects, risk and reproductive citizenship. Critical Public Health 22: 329–340. doi:10.1080/09581596.2012.657612.
*Lyerly, A.D., L.M. Mitchell, E.M. Armstrong, L.H. Harris, R. Kukla, M. Kuppermann, and M.O. Little. 2009. Risk and the pregnant body. Hastings Center Report 39(6): 34–42.
Mill, J.S. 1978. Frelsið [On liberty], 2nd ed, Trans. J.H. Adalsteinsson and Th. Gylfason. Reykjavík: Hið íslenzka bókmenntafélag. (Original work published 1859).
*Minkoff, H., and J. Ecker. 2013. A reconsideration of home birth in the United States. Journal of Clinical Ethics 24: 207–214.
*Minkoff, H., and A.D. Lyerly. 2010. Samantha Burton and the rights of pregnant women twenty years after In re A. C. Hastings Center Report 40(6): 13–15.
*Minkoff, H., and L.M. Paltrow. 2004. Melissa Rowland and the rights of pregnant women. Obstetrics and Gynecology 104: 1234–1236. doi:10.1097/01.aog.0000146289.65429.48.
*Murray-Davis, B., H. McDonald, A. Rietsma, M. Coubrough, and E. Hutton. 2014. Deciding on home or hospital birth: Results of the Ontario choice of birthplace survey. Midwifery 30: 869–876. doi:10.1016/j.midw.2014.01.008.
*Murray-Davis, B., P. McNiven, H. McDonald, A. Malott, L. Elarar, and E. Hutton. 2012. Why home birth? A qualitative study exploring women’s decision making about place of birth in two Canadian provinces. Midwifery 28: 576–581. doi:10.1016/j.midw.2012.01.013.
*Namey, E.E., and A.D. Lyerly. 2010. The meaning of “control” for childbearing women in the US. Social Science and Medicine 71(4): 769–776. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2010.05.024.
*Nieuwenhuijze, M., and L.K. Low. 2013. Facilitating women’s choice in maternity care. Journal of Clinical Ethics 24: 276–282.
*Oboyle, C. 2013. ‘Just waiting to be hauled over the coals’: Home birth midwifery in Ireland. Midwifery 29: 988–995. doi:10.1016/j.midw.2012.12.010.
*Olsen, O., and J.A. Clausen. 2012. Planned hospital birth versus planned home birth. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 9: Cd000352. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD000352.pub2.
Parratt, J., and K. Fahy. 2003. Trusting enough to be out of control: a pilot study of women’s sense of self during childbirth. Australian Journal of Midwifery 16(1): 15–22.
Registrar of the European Court of Human Rights. 2010. Legal uncertainty prevented mother from giving birth at home [Press release no. 962(3)]. http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng-press/Pages/search.aspx#{%22fulltext%22:[%22Ternovszky%20v.%20hungary%22],%22sort%22:[%22respondent%20Ascending%22],%22prrespondent%22:[%22HUN%22]}. Accessed 5 Sept 2014.
Sandall, J., H. Soltani, S. Gates, A. Shennan, and D. Devane. 2013. Midwife-led continuity models versus other models of care for childbearing women. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 8: Cd004667. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD004667.pub3.
*Shaw, R. 2007. ‘It’s your body, your baby, your birth’: Planning and achieving home birth. Feminism and Psychology 17: 565–570.
*Symon, A., C. Winter, P.T. Donnan, and M. Kirkham. 2010. Examining autonomy’s boundaries: A follow-up review of perinatal mortality cases in UK independent midwifery. Birth 37: 280–287.
*The Lancet. 2010. Home birth—Proceed with caution. Lancet 376: 303. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(10)61165-8.
*van Haaren-Ten Haken, T., M. Hendrix, M. Nieuwenhuijze, L. Budé, R. de Vries, and J. Nijhuis. 2012. Preferred place of birth: Characteristics and motives of low-risk nulliparous women in the Netherlands. Midwifery 28: 609–618. doi:10.1016/j.midw.2012.07.010.
*Vedam, S. 2012. In search of a common agenda for planned home birth in America. The Journal of Perinatal Education 21: 67–71. doi:10.1891/1058-1243.21.2.67.
*Viisainen, K. 2001. Negotiating control and meaning: Home birth as a self-constructed choice in Finland. Social Science and Medicine 52(7): 1109–1121.
Walker, L.O., and K.C. Avant. 2005. Strategies for theory construction in nursing. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Wax, J.R., F.L. Lucas, M. Lamont, M.G. Pinette, A. Cartin, and J. Blackstone. 2010. Maternal and newborn outcomes in planned home birth vs planned hospital births: A metaanalysis. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 203: 243.e1–8. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2010.05.028.
*Wendland, C.L. 2013. Exceptional deliveries: Home births as ethical anomalies in American obstetrics. Journal of Clinical Ethics 24: 253–265.
Young, R. 2001. Informed consent and patient autonomy. In Companion to bioethics, ed. H. Kuhse, and P. Singer, 441–451. Oxford: Blackwell.
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by grants from the Icelandic Research Fund for Graduate Students and the Memorial Fund of Midwife Bjorg Magnusdottir and Farmer Magnus Jonasson. The article was proofread by Mr. Neal O’Donoghue.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Halfdansdottir, B., Wilson, M.E., Hildingsson, I. et al. Autonomy in place of birth: a concept analysis. Med Health Care and Philos 18, 591–600 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-015-9624-y
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-015-9624-y