Literature DB >> 18243836

Including the nonrational is sensible midwifery.

Jenny A Parratt1, Kathleen M Fahy.   

Abstract

Since the subordination of midwifery by medicine and nursing in the 19th and 20th centuries the standard approach to childbirth has been dominated by rationality. This approach proceeds by creating dichotomies and then prioritising one half of the dichotomy whilst rejecting the opposite term. Rationality itself is prioritised, for example, by contrasting it with the rejected opposite: irrationality. Expert clinical practice is, however, increasingly identified as being inclusive of more than merely rational ways of knowing and behaving. This paper is based on a post-structural study concerning changes to women's embodied sense of self during childbearing. We expose the limitations of pure rationality in the context of childbirth and use the concept of safety to exemplify the limitations that pure rationality imposes. The paper draws on philosophical and spiritual theory to present an analysis of ideas about mind, body, soul and spirit. The standard rational/irrational dichotomy is critiqued and contrasted with the embodied reality of nonrational experiences that are individual, contextual and 'in-the-moment'. Nonrational experiences are identified to be inclusive of power and knowledge that are both rational and nonrational. This revised conceptualisation provides a theoretical basis that allows for and promotes more possibilities and thus more holistic ways of knowing in midwifery. Our thesis is that midwives and women need to take conscious account of nonrational knowledge and power during the childbearing year. We argue that pure rational thinking limits possibilities by excluding the midwife's embodied ways of knowing along with the ways of knowing embodied by the woman. The inclusion of women's and midwives'nonrational ways of knowing in childbearing situations opens us up to knowledge and power that provides for a more complete, and therefore a more optimal, decision-making process.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18243836     DOI: 10.1016/j.wombi.2007.12.002

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Women Birth        ISSN: 1871-5192            Impact factor:   3.172


  3 in total

1.  Jordanian women's experiences and constructions of labour and birth in different settings, over time and across generations: a qualitative study.

Authors:  Suha Abed Almajeed Abdallah Hussein; Hannah G Dahlen; Olayide Ogunsiji; Virginia Schmied
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2020-06-10       Impact factor: 3.007

2.  Perceptions of labour pain management of Dutch primary care midwives: a focus group study.

Authors:  Trudy Klomp; Ank de Jonge; Eileen K Hutton; Suzanne Hers; Antoine L M Lagro-Janssen
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2016-01-16       Impact factor: 3.007

3.  Effects of midwife-led maternity services on postpartum wellbeing and clinical outcomes in primiparous women under China's one-child policy.

Authors:  Jing Hua; Liping Zhu; Li Du; Yu Li; Zhuochun Wu; Da Wo; Wenchong Du
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2018-08-13       Impact factor: 3.007

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.