Doğumda risk, güvenlik, korku ve güven
Özet
Bu bölümde doğum eyleminde ve yönetiminde risk, güvenlik, korku ve güven kavramları eleştirel bir yaklaşımla incelenmektedir. Çağdaş doğum bakımında hakim olan tekno-rasyonel ve riskten kaçınan kurumsal kültür, her hamileliğin mutlaka bir risk barındırdığı inancını beslemekte ve nadir görülen olumsuz sonuçları önlemek adına müdahalelerin rutin olarak aşırı kullanımına yol açmaktadır. Ancak bu durum, kanıta dayalı tıp ilkeleriyle her zaman örtüşmemekte, sağlıklı kadınların hastane dışı daha güvenli doğum seçeneklerini kısıtlamakta ve kadınların özerkliğini zedelemektedir. Sürekli elektronik fetal kalp izlemi (EFM) gibi teknolojik izleme araçları yenidoğan sonuçlarını net bir şekilde iyileştirmemesine rağmen, kurumsal sorumluluk korkusuyla yaygın olarak uygulanmakta ve doğumun doğal, fizyolojik sürecini kesintiye uğratmaktadır. Bu korku temelli ve savunmacı yaklaşım, hem ebelerin hem de kadınların normal doğuma olan güvenini sarsarak sistem içinde yaygın bir endişe ortamı yaratmaktadır. Korkunun panzehiri ise ebe liderliğindeki sürekli bakım modelleri ve disiplinler arası güven kültürüdür; sağlık profesyonelleri ile kadınlar arasında kurulan güçlü bağlar ve şefkatli iletişim, doğum ortamını güvenli hale getirmekte ve fızyolojik doğumu desteklemektedir.
In this chapter, the concepts of risk, safety, fear, and trust in childbirth and its management are critically examined. The technorational and risk-averse institutional culture dominant in contemporary birth care fosters the belief that every pregnancy inherently carries risk, leading to the routine overuse of interventions to prevent rare adverse outcomes. However, this situation does not always align with evidence-based medicine principles, restricts safer out-of-hospital birth options for healthy women, and undermines women's autonomy. Technological surveillance tools such as continuous electronic fetal monitoring (EFM) are widely applied due to fear of institutional accountability despite lacking clear evidence in improving neonatal outcomes, thereby disrupting the natural, physiological process of birth. This fear-based and defensive approach shakes the confidence of both midwives and women in normal birth, creating a pervasive environment of anxiety within the system. The antidote to this fear lies in midwife-led continuity of care models and an interdisciplinary culture of trust; strong bonds and compassionate communication established between healthcare professionals and women render the birthing environment safe and support physiological birth.
Referanslar
Adams, J. (2003). Risk and Morality: Three Framing Devices. Risk and Morality. R. Ericson and A. Doyle. Toronto University of Toronto Press: 87-103.
Arabin, B., et al. (2013). “Die geplante Hausgeburt in industrialisierten Landern: Burokratische Traumvorstellung vs. professionelle Verantwortlichkeit.” Z Geburtshilfe Neonatol 217(1): 7-13.
Beck, U. (1992). Risk society : towards a new modernity. London ; Newbury Park, Calif., Sage Publications. Bernstein, P. L. (1996/1998). Against the gods: The Remarkable Story of Risk. New York, John Wiley & Sons.
Birthplace in England Collaborative Group, Brocklehurst P, Hardy P, Hollowell J, Linsell L, Macfarlane A, McCourt C, Marlow N, Miller A, Newburn M, Petrou S, Puddicombe D, Redshaw M, Rowe R, Sandall J, Silverton L, Stewart M. 2011 Perinatal and maternal outcomes by planned place of birth for healthy women with low risk pregnancies: the Birthplace in England national prospective cohort study. BMJ.23;343:d7400. doi: 10.1136/bmj.d7400)
Chervenak, F., et al. (2011). “The professional responsibility model of obstetrical ethics: avoiding the perils of clashing rights.” American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 205(4): 315.e311-315.e315.
Chervenak, F. A. and L. B. McCullough (2017). “Ethical dimensions of the fetus as patient.” Best Practice & Research Clinical Obstetrics and Gynaecology 43: 2-9.
Copeland F, et al. (2013). “Conflicting Contexts: Midwives interpretation fo childbirth through photo elicitation.”
Women and Birth Available online 25th December 2013.
Dahlen HG (2014). “Managing Risk or Facilitating Safety?” International Journal of Childbirth
4(2): 66-68.
Dahlen HG and Caplice S (2014). “What do midwives fear?” Women and Birth Online http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. wombi.2014.06.008.
de Jonge A, Peters L, Geerts CC, van Roosmalen JJM, Twisk JWR, Brocklehurst P, Hollowell J. 2017 Mode of birth and medical interventions among women at low risk of complications: A cross-national comparison of birth settings in England and the Netherlands. PLoS One. 2017 Jul 27;12(7):e0180846. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0180846. eCollection 2017.
de Londras, F. (2015). “Constitutionalizing Fetal Rights: A Salutary Tale from Ireland.” Michigan Journal of Gender and Law 22(2).
Douglas, M. (1966/2007). Purity and Danger: an Analysis of Concept of Pollution and Taboo. London; New York, Routledge.
Douglas, M. (1992/2003). Risk and blame: essays in cultural theory. London; New York, Routledge.
Hacking, I. (1975/2007). The Emergence of Probability: A Philosophical Study of Early Ideas about Probability, Induction and Statistical Inference. New York, Cambridge University Press.
Jackson, M., et al. (2012). “Birthing outside the system: Perspectives of risk amongst Australian women who have high risk homebirths.” Midwifery 28(5): 561-567.
Lupton, D. (1999/2013). Risk. London; New York, Routledge.
Lyng, S. (1990). “Edgework: A Social Psychological Analysis of Voluntary Risk Taking.” The American Journal of Sociology 95(4): 851-886.
Mackintosh N, Watson K, Rance S, Sandall J. 2014 Value of a modified early obstetric warning system (MEOWS) in managing maternal complications in the peripartum period: an ethnographic study. BMJ Qual Saf. 2014 Jan;23(1):26-34. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2012-001781. Epub 2013 Jul 18.
Powell Kennedy H and Shannon M (2004). “Keeping birth normal: research findings on midwifery care during childbirth.” Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 33(5): 554-560.
Quinn AC, Meek T, Waldmann C. 2016 Obstetric early warning systems to prevent bad outcome. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol. 2016 Jun;29(3):268-72. doi: 10.1097/ACO.0000000000000338.
Rath, W. and S. Schmidt (2013). “Out-of-Hospital Obstetrics.” Z Geburtsh Neonatol 217: 1-2.
Regan M and Liaschenko J (2007). “In the mind of the beholder: Hypothesized effect of intrapartum nurse’s cognitive frames of childbirth caesarean section rates.” Qualitative Health Research 17(5): 612-634.
Sandall J, et al. (2015). “Midwife-led continuity models versus othermodels of care for childbearing women. .” Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews Issue 9. Art. No.: CD004667. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004667. pub4.
Singh A, Guleria K, Vaid NB, Jain S. 2016 Evaluation of maternal early obstetric warning system (MEOWS chart) as a predictor of obstetric morbidity: a prospective observational study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2016 Dec;207:11-17. doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2016.09.014. Epub 2016 Oct 8.
