Dear all
The term 'normal in retrospect' has been attributed to what has been
called the 'medical' model of care. Does anyone know where this term
originated in? I know it is in Tew's work but was it around before
then? If anyone has any references could they please post. I will
collate for list.
Thanks
Declan
Declan Devane,
Doctoral Student / Midwifery Research Assistant,
School of Nursing and Midwifery Studies,
University of Dublin Trinity College,
Trinity Centre for Health Sciences Education,
St. James's Hospital,
Dublin 8.
Tel: 087 659 6923
Email: [log in to unmask]
*******************************************
Please note that electronic mail to,
from or within Trinity College may be
the subject of a request under the
Freedom of Information Act
*******************************************
-----Original Message-----
From: A forum for discussion on midwifery and reproductive health
research. [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Céline
Lemay
Sent: 07 March 2003 12:13
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Help!
Jenny,
This thing of normality in retrospect come from medical thinking for
about 80 years now. First, women's body was studied with the masculine
body as the norm. From the start, it was not " normal". In that
conception of the norm (a kind of ideal...) you should always ask the
question: normal for who? Compare to what? Birth is normal in retrospect
like a trip is, like most of the things human beings are doing, like
life is. Normality of birth is not a posteriori, it is A PRIORI. It is a
biological norm, it is an evolutionary norm. Human body did not change
for the last 100,000 years! Same physiology, same brain, same pelvis,
same uterus, same hormones. Women's bodies are made to carry, nourrish,
protect and give birth to babies. This is the miracle. What we have
now is the best evolution for the human species! Most of the time human
being where not eating enough ( they still do), there was no
antibiotics, etc . Normality should be somewere because we are now 6
billions! This is the powerfull normativity of the living human body.
The problem is not that there are problems sometimes ( and they are part
of normal). It is that we don't acknowledge that most of the time, it
works! It is NOT chance! It is not survival. We are talking about the
process that assure the reproduction of the human species here. The
study of all genetics and congenital abnormalities brings fears but at
the same time it also reveal the miraculous generality of perfection in
human beings. At first, for medicine, woman's body was not normal, than
it was potentially pathologic, and now it constitute a risk for the
foetus.... so if you don't control the process ( I mean the woman)
carefully, something bad can always happen. So prenatal care is now
expecting trouble... All that "surveillance" comes from fear, and
distrust about women and babies. Women shouldn't have to prove that
they are "adequate", being good girls, following advices, doing
choices...and shut up.
Céline, from Québec
( sorry for my english, I am french speaking....)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Marianne Mead" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 6:49 AM
Subject: Re: Help!
> Jenny,
>
> I would argue that the principle of "innocent until proved guilty"
> should apply in the circumstances. You cannot prove that a woman does
> not have
an
> abnormality, in the same way that the accused does not have to prove
> their innocence. I would suggest an approach whereby all women are
> considered normal, irrespective of how you define normality, until a
> defined
condition
> which could negatively affect either mother or baby is demonstrated.
>
> Pregnancy and labour as such cannot be identified as defined
> conditions that could negatively affect either mother or baby,
> although of course you have to be pregnant to suffer any pregnancy
> complications!!! But then you have to be alive to die!
>
> I suggest that you might look at it from the point of view that any
> woman who would be suitable for home birth is by definition suitable
> for the Family Birth Rooms.
>
> Although I would not like to appear cynical and Christmas is a long
> way away, you might wish to collect money to get them a copy of
> Marjorie Tew's book on Safer Childbirth?
>
> Just a thought! Happy fund raising :-)
>
> Marianne
>
>
> Dr Marianne Mead
> Department of Nursing and Midwifery
> University of Hertfordshire
> College Lane
> Hatfield AL10 9AB
>
> Tel 01707 285286
> Fax 01707 285299
|