Skip to main content

The revolution in maternity care: the diverse strands of a complicated tapestry

  • Chapter
Safer Childbirth?
  • 776 Accesses

Abstract

In Britain, by the 1980s, society had come to accept that birth, the essential physiological event by which the human race has perpetuated itself, must now take place in a medical institution. The family home was the traditional birthing place right up to the start of the 20th century and for many years thereafter, yet by the early 1980s hardly 1% of British births took place there. For such a revolutionary concept to be accepted by a culture within such a short period of its history and with such unanimity must be a rare phenomenon. How did it come about?

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. General Register Office/Registrar General. Reports/Statistical Reviews, Annual 1838–1973, HMSO, London.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Office of Population Censuses and Surveys (1974–92) Mortality Statistics, Annual. Series DH 1, DH 2, DH 3, HMSO, London.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Office of Population Censuses and Surveys (1974–92) Birth Statistics, Annual. Series FM 1, HMSO, London.

    Google Scholar 

  4. McKeown, T. (1965) Medicine in Modern Society, George Allen and Unwin, London.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Lancaster, H.O. (1956) Infant mortality in Australia. Med. J. Aust., 2, 100–8.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Macfarlane, A. and Mugford, M. (1984) Birth Counts: Statistics of Pregnancy and Childbirth, National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, Oxford, in collaboration with Office of Population Censuses and Surveys, HMSO, London, Chapter 10.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Gillie, A. (1956) in Proceedings of a Conference on General Practitioner Obstetrics. College of General Practitioners, London, pp. 2–3.

    Google Scholar 

  8. House of Commons Health Committee (1992) Maternity Services, vol. I (the Winterton Report), HMSO, London.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Department of Health (1993) Changing Childbirth, Report of the Expert Maternity Group, Part 1, HMSO, London.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Wood, L.A.C. (1981) Obstetric retrospect. J. R. Coll. Gen. Pract., 31, 80–90.

    Google Scholar 

  11. McGregor, R. and Martin, L. (1961) Obstetrics in a general practice. J. Coll. Gen. Pract., 4, 542–51.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Bury, J.D. and Garson, J.Z. (1963) Home or hospital confinement? J. Coll. Gen. Pract., 5, 590–605.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Taylor, G., Edgar, W. et al. (1980) How safe is general practitioner obstetrics? Lancet, ii, 1287–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Cavenagh, A., Phillips, K. et al. (1984) Contribution of isolated general practitioner maternity units. Br. Med. J., 288, 1438–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Shearer, J. (1985) Five year prospective survey of risk of booking for a home birth in Essex. Br. Med. J., 291, 1478–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Young, G. (1987) Are isolated maternity units run by general practitioners dangerous? Br. Med. J., 294, 744–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Lowe, S., House, W. and Garrett, T. (1987) Comparison of outcome of low-risk labour in an isolated general practice maternity unit and a specialist maternity hospital. J. R. Coll. Gen. Pract., 37, 484–7.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Garrett, T., House, W. and Lowe, S. (1987) Outcome of women booked into an isolated general practitioner maternity unit over eight years. J. R. Coll. Gen. Pract., 37, 488–90.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Marsh, G.N. and Charming, D.M. (1989) Audit of 26 years of obstetric practice. Br. Med. J., 298, 1077–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Flint, C. and Poulengeris, P. (1987) The ‘Know-Your-Midwife’ Report, 34 Elm Quay Court, London SW8 5DE.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Department of Health and Social Security/Office of Population Censuses and Surveys. Hospital Inpatient Enquiry Maternity Tables, Series MB4 No. 8 (1973–76) (Table 4) and No. 28 (1982–85) (Table 2.2), HMSO, London.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Midwifery Matters — The Association of Radical Midwives Magazine. Regular statement on inside cover page.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Sydney Morning Herald (7 November 1987) quoting Warren Jones, Professor of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Flinders Medical Centre, Adelaide, Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  24. House of Commons Health Committee (1992) Maternity Services, vol. III, Appendices to the Minutes of Evidence, pp. 654–922.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Kloosterman, G.J. (1982) The universal aspects of childbirth: human birth as a socio-psychosomatic paradigm. J. Psychosom. Obstet. Gynaecol., 1, 35–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Inch, S. (1981) Birthrights. Hutchinson, London, Appendix 5.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Kloosterman, G.J. (1978) Organization of obstetric care in the Netherlands. Ned. Tijdschr. Genieskd., 1161–71.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1995 Marjorie Tew

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Tew, M. (1995). The revolution in maternity care: the diverse strands of a complicated tapestry. In: Safer Childbirth?. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-2973-0_1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-2973-0_1

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-56593-302-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4899-2973-0

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics