Korean J Women Health Nurs.  2012 Jun;18(2):135-148. 10.4069/kjwhn.2012.18.2.135.

Meaning of 'Natural Childbirth' and Experiences of Women Giving Birth using Midwifery: A Feminist Approach

• Lee EJ
• Park YS

• KMID: 2308253
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.4069/kjwhn.2012.18.2.135

Abstract

PURPOSE
The purpose of this study was to explore the meanings of 'Natural childbirth' from experiences of Korean women who gave birth to a baby in the midwifery using a feminist approach.
METHODS
This paper is a qualitative research study and applies a feminist epistemology and methodology to the experiences of women who gave birth in midwifery. The data were collected by individual in-depth interviews with eleven participants.
RESULTS
Two main themes emerged from the feminist content analyses and each main theme had three sub themes. A. transformation of control and knowledge on childbirth and the body 1) refusing coercive medicalization and building a new normality, 2) specific expectations about biological health and maternity rather than a return to nature, 3) the subject of pregnancy and childbirth, B. 'natural childbirth' practice as a new embodied discipline 1) helpers to support mothers, midwives, 2) helping the body to do 'natural childbirth', 3) from isolated labor to cooperative reproduction.
CONCLUSION
These results indicate that women desired to practice being a subject, consultation with professionals, self-discipline and named actors except for women as 'other subjects' in childbirth.

Keyword

Qualitative research; Feminism; Natural childbirth; Midwifery

MeSH Terms

Female
Feminism
Humans
Medicalization
Midwifery
Mothers
Natural Childbirth
Parturition
Pregnancy
Qualitative Research

Reference

1. Albers LL, Sedler KD, Greulich B. Midwifery care: The "gold standard" for normal childbirth? Birth. 1999. 26:53–54.

2. An SY. The study on the change of social status of the midwife as birth attendant in Korea. 2001. Seoul: Ewha Womans University;Unpublished master's thesis.

3. Anderson GC, Moore E, Hepworth J, Bergman N. Early skin-to-skin contact for mothers and their healthy newborn infants. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2007. 2:CD003519.

4. Cho YM. A feminist study on reproductive technology- in case of using IVF & ET. 1994. Ewha Womans University: Unpublished doctoral dissertation;Seoul.

5. Cho YM. Women's reproductive rights in the medicalized childbirth practice. Journal of Korean Women's Studies. 2004. 20:67–97.

6. Coyle KL, Hauck Y, Percival P, Kristjanson LJ. Ongoing relationships with a personal focus: Mothers' perceptions of birth centre versus hospital care. Midwifery. 2001. 17:171–181.

7. Essex HN, Pickett KE. Mothers without companionship during childbirth: An analysis within the millennium cohort study. Birth. 2008. 35:266–276.

8. Graneheim UH, Lundman B. Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: Concepts, procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness. Nurse Education Today. 2004. 24:105–112.

9. Hatem M, Sandall J, Devane D, Soltani H, Gates S. Midwife-led versus other models of care for childbearing women. Cochrane Database System Review. 2008. 8:CD004667.

10. Hesse-Biber SN, Leckenby D. Hesse-Biber SN, Yaiser ML, editors. How feminists practice social research. Feminist Perspectives on Social Research. 2004. Oxford: Oxford University Press;209–225.

11. Hildingsson I, Rådestad I, Lindgren H. Birth preferences that deviate from the norm in Sweden: Planned home birth versus planned cesarean section. Birth. 2010. 37:288–295.

12. Jeong YB. A feminist analysis of 'the culture of childbirth' discourse - A critique of the concept of nature and medicalization. 2003. Seoul: Seoul National University;Unpublished master's thesis.

13. Kang ML, Kim SK, Bang JM, Ahn JE, Youn Y, Lee SH, et al. The comparison of perception of birth experience to women who had a hospital delivery and those who a maternity hospital delivery. Journal of the Nursing Academic Association of Ewha Womans University. 2005. 39:119–141.

14. Kang MJ. A study on the childbirth experience at maternity clinic. Nonmunjip-Jejuhalladaehak. 1995. 19:7–20.

15. Kennedy HP, Lowe NK. Science and midwifery: Paradigms and paradox. Journal of Midwifery and Women's Health. 2001. 46:91–97.

16. Kim ES. The Korean middle-class women's culture of childbirth. Journal of Korean Women's Studies. 1996. 12:119–153.

17. Kim ES. The cultural politics on women's body. 2001. Seoul: Alternative Culture Press.

18. Kitzinger S. Sheila Kitzinger's letter from Europe: Awake, awake-and action. Birth. 2001. 28:210–212.

19. Lee KS. Experience of the women who succeeded natural birth after cesarean section-based on the deliveries at the midwife's clinic. 2003. Daejeon: Chungnam National University;Unpublished doctoral dissertation.

20. Lee SH. Women's experiences on spontaneous delivery with midwives. 2012. Seoul: Ewha Womans University;Unpublished doctoral dissertation.

21. MacDorman MF, Singh GK. Midwifery care, social and medical risk factors, and birth outcomes in theUSA. Journal of Epidemiology Community Health. 1998. 52:310–317.

22. Morgan KP. Contested bodies, contested knowledges: The politics of women's health: exploring agency and autonomy. 1998. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

23. National Health Insurance Corporation [NHIC]. Status of cesarean section 2000 in Korea. 2001. Seoul: National Health Insurance Corporation [NHIC].

24. National Health Insurance Corporation [NHIC]. Statistics of major surgery 2011 in Korea. 2011. Seoul: Author.

25. National Health Personnel Licensing Examination Board [NHPLEB]. National health personnel licensing examination board white paper 2011 in Korea. 2011. Seoul: Author.

26. Ratcliff KS. Power and the clinical setting. Women and health: Power, technology, inequality, and conflict in a gendered world. 2002. Boston: Allyn and Bacon;31–38.

27. Reinharz S. Feminist content analysis. In feminist methods in social research. 1992. Oxford: Oxford University Press;145–163.

28. Thind A, Mahoni A, Banerjee K, Hagigi F. Where to delivery? Analysis of choice of delivery location from a national survey in India. 2008. BMC Public Health.

29. Zuk M. Sexual selections what we can and can't learn about sex from animals. 2003. Berkeley: University of California Press.