孕產照護邏輯：台灣女性的新生育選擇與共同修補

The Logic of Maternity Care: Taiwanese Women's New Reproductive Choice and Shared Doctoring in Childbirth

10.6255/JWGS.201906_(44).01

施麗雯(Li-Wen Shih)

溫柔生產 ； 助產師 ； 生育自主 ； 生育選擇 ； 照護邏輯 ； 共同修補 ； gentle birth ； midwife ； reproductive autonomy ； reproductive choice ； the logic of care ； shared doctoring

女學學誌：婦女與性別研究

44期（2019 / 06 / 01）

1 - 46

繁體中文

1960年代後從美國開啟的兩波女性生育自主運動，強調對自我身體控制和生育選擇權。面對當代生產醫療過度介入問題，新興的生育改革運動延續選擇權訴求，將助產照護視為解決生產醫療化問題並回復自然的身體自主與生育選擇。相關研究指出當代女性生育選擇有限，助產照護作為生產的新選擇，是否可以促進女性生育自主與照護品質，又如何做到？為回答這些問題，本文分析近年台灣衛生福利部以試辦計畫引進助產師到醫療院所提供給女性的新選擇，討論共同照護模式下的女性經驗，藉此探討生育選擇與孕產照護實作。延伸Annemarie Mol的「照護邏輯」和「選擇邏輯」討論，本文探討台灣孕產照護實作，透過訪談和在北部一家醫院的參與式觀察，分析生產照護活動與待產本身的不穩定性和複雜性，以及選擇助產師或溫柔生產帶來的調節與修補。本文指出選擇有助於女性生育自主，但並非強調「選擇邏輯」。透過分析實作上的「照護邏輯」，可幫助我們了解在多變的產程和照護活動中，產婦需求、實證醫學、醫學常規之間如何因應當下狀況進行「共同修補」，以達成順利生產目的。

Since the 1960s, reproductive choice has been at the center of two waves of U.S.-led women's reproductive rights movements. In response to medicalization of childbirth, the women's movements asked for getting back to nature and for greater autonomy and free choice in method of birth. Many studies have shown that women's reproductive choices are limited by the social and medical system. Therefore, it is significant to examine what is the meaning of having reproductive choices within the medical practice, and how and to what degree the practice of midwifery and the idea of free choice empowers women's autonomy. Can choice bring better maternity care to women? To answer these questions, this paper explores Taiwanese women's new reproductive choices and their practice in maternity care. Based on interviews and participant observation in a local hospital which practices midwifery, the paper delineates women's new choices and how such choice influences women's experiences of maternity care. Drawing on Annemarie Mol's discussions on the logic of care and the logic of choice, this paper analyses women's situation in relation to choice, the constitution of choice, and how women's choice fluctuates during the process of birth. It first argues that having the opportunity to choose midwife care can facilitate women's agency and strengthen their autonomy because a midwife plays a role as an articulator in between women's needs and medical-led routine practice. However, this paper does not stress the importance of ＂the logic of choice＂. Instead, it argues that, with successfully giving birth to a child as the goal, the improvements will depend on an adaptable shared doctoring mediating the pregnant women's needs and the medical-led routine practice, since the process of childbirth is unpredictable.

1. Kuan, Chen-I(2010).A reinterpretation of maternal requests for cesarean sections in Taiwan.考古人類學刊,72,97-136.
   連結：
2. 吳嘉苓(2011)。編排風險：多胚胎孕育的多重社會科技網絡。台灣社會學，22，111-156。
   連結：
3. 施麗雯(2018)。丹麥孕產照護：助產師和產科醫師共同照護模式。台灣公共衛生雜誌，37(3)，280-294。
   連結：
4. 施麗雯(2015)。台灣的道德先鋒：焦慮、產檢選擇與責任的矛盾。科技醫療與社會，21，77-134。
   連結：
5. 郭素珍(2015)。從性別觀點看醫療化的婦女生產。護理雜誌，62(1)，10-15。
   連結：
6. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists(2005).Intrapartum fetal heart rate monitoring. ACOG Practice Bulletin. Clinical management guidelines for obstetrician-gynecologists, number 70, December 2005 (replaces Practice Bulletin number 62, May 2005).Obstetrics and Gynecology,106,1453-1460.
7. Beckett, Katherine(2005).Choosing cesarean: Feminism and the politics of childbirth in the United States.Feminist Theory,6(3),251-275.
8. Benoit, Cecilia,Wrede, Sirpa,Bourgeault, Ivy Lynn,Sandall, Jane,De Vries, Raymond Gene,van Teijlingen, Edwin(2005).Understanding the social organisation of maternity care systems: Midwifery as a touchstone.Sociology of Health and Illness,27(6),722-737.
9. Benoit, Cecilia,Zadoroznyj, Maria,Hallgrimsdottir, Helga,Treloar, Adrienne,Taylor, Kara(2010).Medical dominance and neoliberalisation in maternal care provision: The evidence from Canada and Australia.Social Science and Medicine,71,475-481.
10. Boston Women's Health Book Collective(1973).Our bodies, ourselves: A book by and for women.New York:Simon and Schuster.
11. Bryant, Joanne,Porter, Maree,Tracy, Sally K.,Sullivan, Elizabeth A.(2007).Caesarean birth: Consumption, safety, order, and good mothering.Social Science and Medicine,65(6),1192-1201.
12. Christiaens, Wendy,Bracke, Piet(2009).Place of birth and satisfaction with childbirth in Belgium and the Netherlands.Midwifery,25(2),e11-e19.
13. Christiaens, Wendy,Nieuwenhuijze, Marianne J.,De Vries, Raymond(2013).Trends in the medicalisation of childbirth in Flanders and the Netherlands.Midwifery,29(1),e1-e8.
14. Clarke, Adele E.(1998).Disciplining reproduction: Modernity, American life sciences, and the problems of sex.Oakland:University of California Press.
15. Clarke, Adele E.,Shim, Janet,Mamo, Laura,Fosket, Jennifer Ruth,Fishman, Jennifer R.(2003).Biomedicalization: Technoscientific transformations of health, illness, and U.S. biomedicine.American Sociological Review,68(2),161-194.
16. Clarke, Adele E.,Shim, Janet,Mamo, Laura,Fosket, Jennifer Ruth,Fishman, Jennifer R.(2010).Biomedicalization: Technoscientific transformations of health, illness, and U.S. biomedicine.Biomedicalization: Technoscience, health, and illness in the US,Durham:
17. Dencker, Anna,Smith, Valerie,McCann, Colette,Begley, Cecily Marion(2017).Midwife-led maternity care in Ireland-a retrospective cohort study.BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth,17(1),101.
18. Duden, Barbara(1993).Disembodying women: Perspectives on pregnancy and the unborn.London:Harvard University Press.
19. Eisler, Riane(Ed.)(1989).Test-tube women: What future for motherhood?.London:Pandora Press.
20. Graham, Ernest M.,Petersen, Scott M.,Christo, Dana K.,Fox, Harold E.(2006).Intrapartum electronic fetal heart rate monitoring and the prevention of perinatal brain injury.Obstetrics and Gynecology,108,656-666.
21. Haraway, Donna(1991).Simians, cyborgs, and women: The reinvention of nature.New York:Routledge.
22. Hiddinga, Anja,Blume, Stuart S.(1992).Technology, science, and obstetric p ractice: The origins and trans formation of cephalopelvimetry.Science, Technology, and Human Values,17(2),154-179.
23. Homer, Caroline S. E.(2016).Models of maternity care: Evidence for midwifery continuity of care.The Medical Journal of Australia,205(8),370-374.
24. Horton, Richard,Astudillo, Olaya(2014).The power of midwifery.The Lancet,384(9948),1075-1076.
25. Kingdon, Carol,Singleton, Vicky,Gabbay, Mark,Lavender, Tina,Gyte, Gill,Neilson, Jim,Hart, Alyssa(2009).Choice and birth method: Mixed-method study of caesarean delivery for maternal request.BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology,116(7),886-895.
26. Kitzinger, Sheila(2012).Rediscovering the social model of childbirth.Birth,39(4),301-304.
27. Kuan, Chen-I(2014)."Suffering twice": The gender politics of cesarean sections in Taiwan.Medical Anthropology Quarterly,28(3),399-418.
28. Lash, Scott(Ed.),Szerszynski, Bronislaw(Ed.),Wynne, Brian(Ed.)(1996).Risk, environment and modernity: Towards a new ecology.London:Sage.
29. Lazarus, Ellen S.(1994).What do women want?: Issues of choice, control, and class in pregnancy and childbirth.Medical Anthropology Quarterly,8(1),25-46.
30. MacDorman, Marian F.,Declercq, Eugene,Mathews, Thomas J.(2011).United States home births increase 20 percent from 2004 to 2008.Birth,38,185-190.
31. Martin, Emily(1989).The woman in the body: A cultural analysis of reproduction.Boston:Beacon Press.
32. McKay, Susan(1993).Models of midwifery care: Denmark, Sweden, and the Netherlands.Journal of Nurse-Midwifery,38(2),114-120.
33. McKay, Susan(1991).Shared power: The essence of humanized childbirth.Pre- and Peri-natal Psychology Journal,5(4),283-295.
34. Meyers, Diana Tietjens(2001).The rush to motherhood: Pronatalist discourse and women's autonomy.Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society,26(3),735-773.
35. Miller, Amy Chasteen,Shriver, Thomas E.(2012).Women's childbirth preferences and practices in the United States.Social Science and Medicine,75(4),709-716.
36. Mol, Annemarie(2008).The logic of care: Health and the problem of patient choice.London:Routledge.
37. Mol, Annemarie,吳嘉苓（譯）,陳嘉新（譯）,黃于玲（譯）,謝新誼（譯）,蕭昭君（譯）(2018).照護的邏輯：比賦予病患選擇更重要的事.台北:左岸.
38. Rothman, Barabar Katz(2016).A bun in the oven: How the food and birth movements resist industrialization.New York:New York University Press.
39. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG) (2017) Group B streptococcus (GBS) in pregnancy and newborn babies. Retrieved from https://www.rcog.org.uk/globalassets/documents/patients/patient-information-leaflets/pregnancy/pi-gbs-pregnancy-newborn.pdf
40. Simonds, Wendy(Ed.),Rothman, Barbara Katz(Ed.),Norman, Bari Meltzer(Ed.)(2007).Laboring on: Birth in transition in the United States.New York:Routledge.
41. Stevens, Gabrielle,Miller, Yvette D.,Watson, Bernadette,Thompson, Rachel(2016).Choosing a model of maternity care: Decision support needs of Australian women.Birth,43(2),167-175.
42. Tracy, Sally K.,Hartz, Donna L.,Tracy, Mark B.,Allen, Jyai,Forti, Amanda,Hall, Bev,White, Jan,Lainchbury, Anne,Stapleton, Helen,Beckmann, Michael,Bisits, Andrew,Homer, Caroline,Foureur, Maralyn,Welsh, Alec,Kildea, Sue(2013).Caseload midwifery care versus standard maternity care for women of any risk: M@NGO, a randomised controlled trial.The Lancet,382(9906),1723-1732.
43. Vallgårda, Signild(1996).Hospitalization of deliveries: The change of place of birth in Denmark and Sweden from the late nineteenth century to 1970.Medical History,40,173-196.
44. van Teijlingen, Edwin(2005).A critical analysis of the medical model as used in the study of pregnancy and childbirth.Sociological Research Online,10(2),1-15.
45. Wahlberg, Ayo(Ed.),Gammeltoft, Tine(Ed.)(2018).Selective reproduction in the 21st century.Cham:Palgrave Macmillan.
46. Walsh, Denis(2007).Evidence-based care for normal labour and birth: A guide for midwives.New York:Routledge.
47. Walsh, Denis(2010).Childbirth embodiment: Problematic aspects of current understandings.Sociology of Health and Illness,32(3),486-501.
48. Wernham, Ellie,Gurney, Jason,Stanley, James,Ellison-Loschmann, Lis,Sarfati, Diana(2016).A comparison of midwife-led and medical-led models of care and their relationship to adverse fetal and neonatal outcomes: A retrospective cohort study in New Zealand.PLOS Medicine,13(9),e1002134.
49. 司晏芳(2014)。想要好好生？產科照護新趨勢。健康線上雜誌，189
50. 生產改革行動聯盟（2015 年 12 月 12 日）〈共照、麥走，邁走：還我友善多元生產方案！〉，記者會新聞稿。取自 http://www.midwife.org.tw/modules/News/News_view.php?id=274
51. 吳嘉苓(2010)。臨床因素的消失：台灣剖腹產研究的知識生產政治。臺灣社會學刊，45，1-62。
52. 吳嘉苓(2000)。台灣助產士興衰的社會學分析。台灣社會學研究，4，191-268。
53. 李昀澔（2014 年 7 月 25 日）〈產前簽計畫書醫界民團看法相左〉，《台灣醒報》。取自 https://anntw.com/articles/20140724-iNKv
54. 李建南(2014)。,行政院衛生署國民健康局。
55. 官晨怡(2013)。生產中的現代性：科技信仰與科技侷限的競技場。臺灣人類學刊，11(1)，65-91。
56. 林綺雲(1993)。台灣助產士專業的變遷─社會學的解析與省思。國立台北護專學報，10，269-284。
57. 施麗雯(2014)。To Do or Not to Do ？台灣懷孕女性與產前篩檢與檢測。科技社會人 2：跨領域新挑戰，新竹:
58. 婦女新知基金會（2014a）〈母親不服從運動：秀出妳的生產計劃書〉。取自https://www.awakening.org.tw/news/3498
59. 婦女新知基金會（2014b）〈拒絕過度醫療化，給我生產計劃書〉。取自 http://www.tygh.mohw.gov.tw/?aid=302&pid=0&page_name=detail&iid=343
60. 張靜宜,高美玲(2008)。生產疼痛的意義。助產雜誌，50，10-15。
61. 許德耀(2013)。,行政院衛生署國民健康局。
62. 郭庚儒（2014 年 7 月 24 日）〈訂定生產計畫書？醫界批不平等契約〉，《健康醫療網》。取自 https://reurl.cc/VyZoN
63. 郭素珍(2005)。人性化生產。護理雜誌，52(3)，21-28。
64. 陳瑤華（編）(2014).台灣婦女處境白皮書：2014 年.台北:女書.
65. 黃筱珮（2016 年 12 月 23 日）〈溫柔革命／衛福部推醫師助產師共照計畫滿意度 99% 卻僅有 1 家在做〉，《民報》。取自 http://www.peoplenews.tw/news/99837d0c-264c-4cf8-9459-1d431d1f4955
66. 劉育志(2013)。被告怕了！台灣婦產科醫師遭集體「殲滅」。商業週刊
67. 劉毓秀（編）(1995).台灣婦女處境白皮書：1995 年.台北:時報.
68. 蔡明松(2014)。理事長的話。台灣周產期醫學會會訊，214，1。
69. 衛生福利部（2016）《101 年家庭與生育調查報告研究計畫報告》。取自https://www.hpa.gov.tw/Pages/ashx/File.ashx?FilePath=~/File/Attach/1289/File_6288.pdf
70. 衛生福利部（2017）《105 年出生通報統計年報》。台北：衛生福利部國民健康署。
71. 蕭新煌（編）,官有恒（編）,王舒芸（編）(2018).臺灣社會福利運動與政治效應：2000-2018 年.台北:巨流.

1. (2023)。臺灣的性別與醫療、公衛研究：一個個人的回顧。近代中國婦女史研究，42，185-210。
2. (2023)。照護無家者，照護自己：新型態無家議題工作者的實作與反思。台灣社會研究季刊，124，1-49。