IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v53y2001i4p531-542.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Legalized, regulated, but unfunded: midwifery's laborious professionalization in Alberta, Canada, 1975-99

Author

Listed:
  • McKendry, Rachael
  • Langford, Tom

Abstract

In 1992, Alberta became the second Canadian province to legalize midwifery. This happened even though there were only approximately 20 midwives in practice at the time, and despite strong opposition from the medical and nursing professions. Between 1992 and 1999, Alberta established a regulatory framework for midwifery as a profession but, unlike Ontario and British Columbia, failed to pay midwives out of the provincial health care budget. This sent midwifery in Alberta into a crisis as many midwives closed their practices. This article first considers why midwifery was legalized and then professionalized in Alberta. Our answer emphasizes the leading role of state health bureaucrats in promoting midwifery as part of the state's challenge to medical dominance. Second, the article addresses why midwifery received so little governmental support at the same time that it attained professional status. This analysis includes a comparison with how midwifery developed in Ontario and British Columbia. Our conclusion is that midwifery in Alberta became a victim in the post-1993 period when a new Right government set aside bureaucratic initiatives in health care and committed itself to major cuts in government spending.

Suggested Citation

  • McKendry, Rachael & Langford, Tom, 2001. "Legalized, regulated, but unfunded: midwifery's laborious professionalization in Alberta, Canada, 1975-99," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 53(4), pages 531-542, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:53:y:2001:i:4:p:531-542
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277-9536(00)00359-2
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Pitchforth, Emma & Lilford, Richard J. & Kebede, Yigzaw & Asres, Getahun & Stanford, Charlotte & Frost, Jodie, 2010. "Assessing and understanding quality of care in a labour ward: A pilot study combining clinical and social science perspectives in Gondar, Ethiopia," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 71(10), pages 1739-1748, November.
    2. Giacaman, Rita & Wick, Laura & Abdul-Rahim, Hanan & Wick, Livia, 2005. "The politics of childbirth in the context of conflict: policies or de facto practices?," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 72(2), pages 129-139, May.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:53:y:2001:i:4:p:531-542. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.