Maternity care providers' perceptions of women's autonomy and the law

ISSN 0256-5004 (Print)

By Nadine Edwards

AIMS Journal, 2015, Vol 27 No 1

Kruske S, Young K, Jenkinson B and Catchlove A (2013) Maternity care providers' perceptions of women's autonomy and the law. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth 2013, 13:84
doi:10.1186/1471-2393-13-84

Pregnant women, like anyone else, have the right to make decisions about their health care, including declining medical advice and treatment. They do not need to follow guidelines or policies. But what this means in practice is not necessarily well understood by doctors and midwives, especially if they believe that a woman's decision might harm her unborn baby. This research was designed to find out about doctors' and midwives' 'attitudes and beliefs towards women's right to make autonomous decisions during pregnancy and birth, and the legal responsibility of professionals for maternal and fetal outcomes'.

Summary of the research

The researchers surveyed 336 midwives and doctors in Queensland, Australia about their views on decision making, women's autonomy and legal responsibilities for poor birth outcomes. Both groups showed 'a poor understanding of their own legal accountability, and the rights of the woman and her fetus'. They believed the final decision should rest with the woman; but at the same time also believed that the needs of the woman may be overridden for the safety of the fetus. Doctors believed that they are legally accountable for the outcomes of women and babies, despite the legal position which makes clear that health care professionals are responsible only for adverse outcomes caused by their own negligence.

Because doctors and midwives can influence women's decisions, the researchers suggest that it is important to understand their perceptions of women's autonomy, so that women can be supported in their decisions.

The doctors and midwives were asked to rate their agreement with, 'In collaborative practice, working with primary carers, the final decision should always rest with the woman' and 'Collaboration involves midwives and doctors working together but the doctor is the most competent in making the final decision'. They all generally agreed that the final decision should rest with the woman, but midwives agreed significantly more often. But with the second statement, there was a significant difference between doctors and midwives: with doctors agreeing that they were the most competent to make a final decision.

They were also asked to rate their agreement with, 'For the safety of the baby, the maternity care team sometimes need to override the needs of the woman' and 'Encouraging women to have more control over their childbearing compromises safety'. Doctors agreed that the needs of the woman sometimes have to be overridden, while midwives were neutral. Both groups disagreed that woman having control over their childbearing would compromise safety, but midwives disagreed more often. Lastly, they were asked to rate their agreement with, 'Legally, doctors are ultimately responsible, even in collaborative models' and 'The current maternity care system allows all to be legally accountable for their own actions in a collaborative team'. Midwives disagreed that doctors are ultimately responsible, but doctors believed that they are. Midwives expressed a neutral response to the second statement while doctors disagreed with it.

Both professional groups indicated that they supported women's right to autonomous decision making during pregnancy by agreeing that the final decision should always rest with the woman, but this was not supported by the conflicting view (or neutrality) that women's decisions could be overridden for the safety of the baby.

Previous research suggests that both midwives and obstetricians only support women to make final decisions about an aspect of their care when this agrees with their own preferences and this research supports this. The researchers comment that if doctors erroneously believe that they are responsible for outcomes following the woman's decision, and that if health practitioners do not understand that they are responsible only for the care their provide, it is difficult for them to support women's decisions that they disagree with. They suggest that 'care providers are poorly informed about this subject.'

The research shows a 'clear ambiguity around clinicians' understanding and beliefs of women's autonomy and the rights of the fetus' and it is suggested that 'some care providers may need to be supported to reflect on how aspects of woman-centred care may conflict with their broader values and beliefs on the rights of the fetus, and the legal and regulatory responsibilities of health professionals'. They also call for guidelines to inform practitioners - especially when women make decisions which they disagree with - and 'policy direction on how these concepts can be applied in evidence-based, woman-centred care'.

AIMS comments

It is no surprise that the study found inconsistencies among practitioners regarding women being decision makers about their care. Nor that midwives and doctors had different views. It does show us what women are up against if they want to make decisions outside the policies, guidelines and medical and midwifery preferences. Not only are they unlikely to get full information, but even if they do, they are unlikely to be supported in certain circumstances. This is an open access article and worth reading, as it shows the tensions around rights and autonomy.


The AIMS Journal spearheads discussions about change and development in the maternity services..

AIMS Journal articles on the website go back to 1960, offering an important historical record of maternity issues over the past 60 years. Please check the date of the article because the situation that it discusses may have changed since it was published. We are also very aware that the language used in many articles may not be the language that AIMS would use today.

To contact the editors, please email: journal@aims.org.uk

We make the AIMS Journal freely available so that as many people as possible can benefit from the articles. If you found this article interesting please consider supporting us by becoming an AIMS member or making a donation. We are a small charity that accepts no commercial sponsorship, in order to preserve our reputation for providing impartial, evidence-based information.

JOIN AIMS

MAKE A DONATION

Buy AIMS a Coffee with Ko-Fi

AIMS supports all maternity service users to navigate the system as it exists, and campaigns for a system which truly meets the needs of all.

Latest Content

Journal

« »

An interview with Sarah Odling Smee

AIMS Journal, 2025, Vol 37, No 1 Interview by Leslie Altic What first attracted you to being a midwife, tell us a bit about your journey and how you got to where you are…

Read more

Birth Activists Briefing: The lates…

AIMS Journal, 2025, Vol 37, No 1 By the AIMS Campaigns Team In this article we will summarise some of the key points of data about the maternity services that have been p…

Read more

AIMS Physiology-Informed Maternity…

AIMS Journal, 2025, Vol 37, No 1 Art by Sophie Jenna Latest update from the PIMS team! The NIHR (National Institute for Health and Care Research) recently asked the Campa…

Read more

Events

« »

Black Maternal Health Conference UK…

The Motherhood Group is thrilled to announce that the 3rd annual Black Maternal Health Conference UK is back to bridge the gap between Community, Service Providers and In…

Read more

Doula UK Conference

Doula UK present their annual, popular conference offering a dynamic and exciting programme with a range of topics to inspire, challenge and empower. We look forward to w…

Read more

AIMS Workshop: Technology in the pe…

This is an invitation to anyone who was ever born... ... to explore our understanding and learn together. It’s part of a short series of interactive discussions around ho…

Read more

Latest Campaigns

« »

MBRRACE-UK Saving Lives Improving M…

By the AIMS Campaigns team This note is intended to offer both a summary and AIMS commentary on the latest annual MBRRACE-UK report. MBRRACE stands for Mothers and Babies…

Read more

PIMS Short Case Study - Optimal Cor…

Optimal cord clamping AIMS supports midwife Amanda Burleigh’s campaign for optimal cord clamping “ Wait for White ”. Optimal cord clamping is a key part of physiological…

Read more

PIMS Short Case Study - Biomechanic…

Biomechanics for Birth AIMS is proud to showcase the work of Molly O’Brien, who teaches Biomechanics for Birth, including techniques to diagnose and rectify labour dystoc…

Read more