IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v65y2007i6p1192-1201.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Caesarean birth: Consumption, safety, order, and good mothering

Author

Listed:
  • Bryant, Joanne
  • Porter, Maree
  • Tracy, Sally K.
  • Sullivan, Elizabeth A.

Abstract

This article draws on qualitative data to explore the beliefs through which decisions about caesarean birth are made and to consider how these might contribute to the increasing rate of caesarean birth. A total of 36 interviews were conducted in Australia, including 12 hospital-based midwives, 6 obstetricians, and 18 women who had experienced caesarean birth within the 2 years prior to the research interview. Data reveal a belief derived from the pervasive discourse of neo-liberalism that women are self-governing autonomous subjects in their birth experience, with entitlement to the consumption of birthing information and services, as guided by obstetricians. Feeding into this belief are coexisting discourses that serve to organise 'free choice' in terms of safe/unsafe, order/disorder, life/death; and with ontological meanings, by structuring women's mothering identities as good/bad. The neo-liberal obligation to manage risk and pursue success for both mothers and babies means that women (and others) are obliged to choose what is set up as the most obvious and sensible option: safe, ordered caesareans. The structuring of discourses in this way shows how caesareans can be positioned as a preferential means of birth.

Suggested Citation

  • Bryant, Joanne & Porter, Maree & Tracy, Sally K. & Sullivan, Elizabeth A., 2007. "Caesarean birth: Consumption, safety, order, and good mothering," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 65(6), pages 1192-1201, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:65:y:2007:i:6:p:1192-1201
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277-9536(07)00287-0
    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.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hopkins, Kristine, 2000. "Are Brazilian women really choosing to deliver by cesarean?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 51(5), pages 725-740, September.
    2. LoCicero, Alice Katherine, 1993. "Explaining excessive rates of cesareans and other childbirth interventions: Contributions from contemporary theories of gender and psychosocial development," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 37(10), pages 1261-1269, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Miller, Amy Chasteen & Shriver, Thomas E., 2012. "Women's childbirth preferences and practices in the United States," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 75(4), pages 709-716.
    2. Sunita Panda & Cecily Begley & Deirdre Daly, 2018. "Clinicians’ views of factors influencing decision-making for caesarean section: A systematic review and metasynthesis of qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods studies," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(7), pages 1-27, July.
    3. Tully, Kristin P. & Ball, Helen L., 2013. "Misrecognition of need: Women's experiences of and explanations for undergoing cesarean delivery," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 103-111.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Guccio, C. & Lisi, D., 2014. "Social interactions in inappropriate behavior for childbirth services: Theory and evidence from the Italian hospital sector," Health, Econometrics and Data Group (HEDG) Working Papers 14/28, HEDG, c/o Department of Economics, University of York.
    2. De Luca, Giacomo & Lisi, Domenico & Martorana, Marco & Siciliani, Luigi, 2021. "Does higher Institutional Quality improve the Appropriateness of Healthcare Provision?," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 194(C).
    3. Luisa Masciullo & Luciano Petruzziello & Giuseppina Perrone & Francesco Pecorini & Caterina Remiddi & Paola Galoppi & Roberto Brunelli, 2020. "Caesarean Section on Maternal Request: An Italian Comparative Study on Patients’ Characteristics, Pregnancy Outcomes and Guidelines Overview," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(13), pages 1-12, June.
    4. Hopkins, Kristine & Maria Barbosa, Regina & Riva Knauth, Daniela & Potter, Joseph E., 2005. "The impact of health care providers on female sterilization among HIV-positive women in Brazil," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 61(3), pages 541-554, August.
    5. Guccio, Calogero & Lisi, Domenico, 2016. "Thus do all. Social interactions in inappropriate behavior for childbirth services in a highly decentralized healthcare system," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 1-17.
    6. Smith-Oka, Vania & Flores, Brenda, 2022. "Competing Narratives: Examining Obstetricians’ Decision-Making Regarding Indications for Cesarean Sections and Abdominal Incisions," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 309(C).
    7. Kabakian-Khasholian, Tamar & Kaddour, Afamia & DeJong, Jocelyn & Shayboub, Rawan & Nassar, Anwar, 2007. "The policy environment encouraging C-section in Lebanon," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 83(1), pages 37-49, September.
    8. Wang, Eileen, 2017. "Requests for cesarean deliveries: The politics of labor pain and pain relief in Shanghai, China," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 173(C), pages 1-8.
    9. Leone, Tiziana & Padmadas, Sabu S. & Matthews, Zoë, 2008. "Community factors affecting rising caesarean section rates in developing countries: An analysis of six countries," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 67(8), pages 1236-1246, October.
    10. Iffath Unissa Syed, 2019. "In Biomedicine, Thin Is Still In: Obesity Surveillance among Racialized, (Im)migrant, and Female Bodies," Societies, MDPI, vol. 9(3), pages 1-14, August.
    11. Litorp, Helena & Mgaya, Andrew & Mbekenga, Columba K. & Kidanto, Hussein L. & Johnsdotter, Sara & Essén, Birgitta, 2015. "Fear, blame and transparency: Obstetric caregivers' rationales for high caesarean section rates in a low-resource setting," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 232-240.
    12. Mohammad Rifat Haider & Mohammad Masudur Rahman & Md Moinuddin & Ahmed Ehsanur Rahman & Shakil Ahmed & M Mahmud Khan, 2018. "Ever-increasing Caesarean section and its economic burden in Bangladesh," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(12), pages 1-13, December.
    13. Leone, Tiziana, 2014. "Demand and supply factors affecting the rising overmedicalization of birth in India," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 58646, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    14. Shayesteh Hajizadeh & Fahimeh Ramezani Tehrani & Masoumeh Simbar & Farshad Farzadfar, 2016. "Effects of Recruiting Midwives into a Family Physician Program on Women's Awareness and Preference for Mode of Delivery and Caesarean Section Rates in Rural Areas of Kurdistan," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(4), pages 1-14, April.

    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:65:y:2007:i:6:p:1192-1201. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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.