Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Autonomy in place of birth: a concept analysis

  • Scientific Contribution
  • Published:
Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *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.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Armstrong, E.M. 2010. Home birth matters-for all women. Journal of Perinatal Education 19: 8–11. doi:10.1624/105812410x482329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blackburn, S. 1994. The oxford dictionary of philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Craven, C. 2005. Claiming respectable American motherhood: Homebirth mothers, medical officials, and the state. Medical Anthropology Quarterly 19: 194–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dworkin, G. 1988. The theory and practice of autonomy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • *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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • *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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • International Confederation of Midwives. 2011. Bill of rights for women and midwives. The Netherlands: International Confederation of Midwives.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Kitzinger, S. 2008. Letter from Europe: Home birth, midwives, and doulas. Birth 35: 250–252. doi:10.1111/j.1523-536X.2008.00249.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *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.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Lupton, D. 2012. ‘Precious cargo’: Foetal subjects, risk and reproductive citizenship. Critical Public Health 22: 329–340. doi:10.1080/09581596.2012.657612.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • *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.

    Google Scholar 

  • *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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Nieuwenhuijze, M., and L.K. Low. 2013. Facilitating women’s choice in maternity care. Journal of Clinical Ethics 24: 276–282.

    Google Scholar 

  • *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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Shaw, R. 2007. ‘It’s your body, your baby, your birth’: Planning and achieving home birth. Feminism and Psychology 17: 565–570.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *The Lancet. 2010. Home birth—Proceed with caution. Lancet 376: 303. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(10)61165-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Viisainen, K. 2001. Negotiating control and meaning: Home birth as a self-constructed choice in Finland. Social Science and Medicine 52(7): 1109–1121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walker, L.O., and K.C. Avant. 2005. Strategies for theory construction in nursing. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Young, R. 2001. Informed consent and patient autonomy. In Companion to bioethics, ed. H. Kuhse, and P. Singer, 441–451. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

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

  1. University of Iceland, Eirberg, Eiriksgata 34, 101, Reykjavik, Iceland

    Berglind Halfdansdottir, Olof A. Olafsdottir & Herdis Sveinsdottir

  2. University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, Nebraska

    Margaret E. Wilson

  3. Mid Sweden University, Sundsvall, Sweden

    Ingegerd Hildingsson

  4. Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden

    Ingegerd Hildingsson

  5. Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden

    Ingegerd Hildingsson

  6. University of Akureyri, Akureyri, Iceland

    Alexander Kr. Smarason

Authors
  1. Berglind Halfdansdottir
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Margaret E. Wilson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ingegerd Hildingsson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Olof A. Olafsdottir
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Alexander Kr. Smarason
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Herdis Sveinsdottir
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Berglind Halfdansdottir.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-015-9624-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation