Читать книгу Better Births - Anna Brown - Страница 9

Contemporary British midwifery education often includes a consideration of the historical context of midwifery, and as such many midwives will be aware that the term ‘midwife’ derives from Anglo‐Saxon, meaning ‘with woman’. This terminology itself identifies the role of the midwife, and the importance it puts on the person whom the midwife attends. However, it is acknowledged that the voice of this woman has historically been unheard (Evenden 2000), as has the voice of the midwife (Harley 1993). This lack of voice generally stems from a lack of strong historic evidence, resulting in the historic misrepresentation of midwives (McIntosh 2012; Marland 1993; Harley 1990). Oral histories such as Leap and Hunter (1993) and collected letters such as Llewelyn Davies (1915) do give us an insight into the more recent past, but to go further back presents challenges. What evidence we do have, in terms of parish registers (Allison 2016) or material from early midwives' licenses (Evenden 2000; Harley 1990), does not directly inform us about the relationship between midwife and woman.

Taking all this into account, then much of how early midwives were viewed by the woman they cared for must be inferred from such records. Evenden (2000) acknowledges that childbirth practices of seventeenth‐century midwives often comes from second‐hand sources, or ‘prescriptive information from non‐participating males’ (p. 79), and these are often more a direction as to what the midwife should do; for example, how to prepare the bed, the lighting within the room, and how to examine the woman and physically care for her in labour. There isn't any evidence of the relationship between mother and midwife beyond this care given. This does not appear to be unusual, with a textbook written in 1671 by Jane Sharpe, a midwife, also focusing on the physical care given. What does give an indication of satisfaction of the care provided is the ‘repeat business’ that Evenden (2000) found in her exploration of midwives in seventeenth‐century London, with women often recommending their midwife to family and friends.

Where we do have direct evidence of midwives' attitudes to women, it can appear alien to the concept of women‐centred care and being ‘with woman’. Leap and Hunter (1993) describe how their ‘romantic expectations about our midwifery heritage’ were dashed by the authoritarian stance of some of the midwives they interviewed for their oral history, with these midwives taking a somewhat patronising approach to the woman in their care, one being quoted as saying ‘They had to be taught to be good mothers. Some of them were very foolish and irresponsible’ (Leap and Hunter 1993, p. 193). It is perhaps not suprising that this was the point of view of this midwife, when it is considered that midwifery textbooks at the time when she was likely to have been in training were prescriptive in the expectations of pregnant woman – down to what was appropriate clothing (Myles 1953).

A more humanistic approach to the mother–midwife relationship in a ‘with woman’ phenomenon is central to midwifery practice today. This is a physical manifestation of the relationship created by midwives with women. On the other hand, the ‘with woman’ concept is a mental construct, conceived and created in midwifery practice, to capture the essence, values, behaviours and functions of this special relationship. The ‘with woman’ concept is explored more closely in the following chapters and is specifically examined through a theoretical framework in the next section.