IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

Obstacles to the practice of licensed lay midwifery

Listed author(s):
  • Sullivan, Deborah A.
  • Weitz, Rose
Registered author(s):

    Intensive interviews with licensed lay midwives in one of ten states that have recently reactivated and revised legislation legalizing such alternative practitioners for low risk clientele revealed a number of obstacles to their practice. The obstacles stem from the same rules and regulations developed by medical practitioners that made their homebirth service legal. Even after surmounting the difficulties of obtaining a license, the midwives find widespread unwillingness among private physicians to provide the required prenatal screening examination and medical back-up. The opposition of physicians to the licensed midwifery program is voiced in terms of concern about the safety of homebirths, particularly those attended by nonphysicians. Yet, the outcomes from the first 4 years of the program give no support for such concerns. Physician reluctance to cooperate with the legal program, combined with restrictions prohibiting the licensed midwives from sulturing minor tears and administering a single dose of an antihemorrhagic drug in an emergency transfer, do compromise the overall quality of midwifery care. While accepting their subordinate position to medical practitioners, the midwives are struggling to establish the continuum of care for homebirth women implied in their licensure law.

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

    Article provided by Elsevier in its journal Social Science & Medicine.

    Volume (Year): 19 (1984)
    Issue (Month): 11 (January)
    Pages: 1189-1196

    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:19:y:1984:i:11:p:1189-1196
    Contact details of provider: Web page:

    Order Information: Postal:

    No references listed on IDEAS
    You can help add them by filling out this form.

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:19:y:1984:i:11:p:1189-1196. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu)

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.