Community midwifery and state measures: the new midwifery in British Columbia

The New Midwifery, a form of community midwifery rooted in home birth and intensive prenatal and postnatal care, has attracted great controversy since its appearance in British Columbia in the early 1970s. On the one hand, this form of community midwifery has endured despite legal prohibition. Midwives derive an income from their practices, obtain necessary supplies and equipment, and are active in lobbying for recognition through the State. On the other hand, community midwifery is marginalized and illegal. Out-of-hospital births comprise less than one percent of births in British Columbia (and nationwide). Community midwives are excluded from the provincal Medical Services Plan and they lack hospital privileges if their clients are transferred to hospital. Community midwives are more likely than medical personnel to be tried for criminal negligence causing death and subject to prosecution under theMedical Practitioners Act of practicing medicine without a license.Community midwifery illustrates the structural limits placed on female birth attendants working outside the norm of professionally accredited, hospital situated childbirth. It is concluded that State measures in Canada structure power relations in a dialectical fashion. This includes measures to consolidate the monopoly status of the medical profession and the nursing profession, while temporizing about demands for independent midwifery practice. State powers are however relatively autonomous of dominant economic groups such as the Medical profession. Not all prosecutions of community midwives are successful, and contradictions in State policies surrounding monopolistic powers and civil liberties, and gender relations are evident.An earlier version of this paper was presented at the Canadian Sociology and Anthropology Association Meetings, University of Manitoba, June 1986. The author is grateful for resources provided through the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, the Department of Anthropology and Sociology (University of British Columbia), and the School of Criminology, Simon Fraser University. Comments from Carol Bullock, Nanette Davis, Bob Ratner, Livy Visano and the Journal referees have been helpful in revising this paper.