All midwives use some form of technology to support their practice.The majority of women expect and accept the use of technology in allaspects of their antenatal, intranatal and postnatal care.Many pregnant women today have grown up in a high tech world whereFacebook, Twitter, texting and instant access to the Internet are part ofroutine life.Childbirth technology used appropriately benefits mothers andmidwives. The midwife is the conduit betweenwomen and technology. Midwives need to be competent insupporting birth with and withouttechnology.Occularcentrism is one of the mainreasons why women and midwives willcontinue to value the visible, audibleand retrievable data that comes fromthe CTG machine.High technology such as the CTG andultrasound provide professional andlegal evidence. Technology can harm, lead to a falsesense of security and it can lead to death; therefore the midwife’s role indevice safety is paramount. Once the natural cycle of birth hasbeen broken and we have induced or accelerated labour, all surveillance,monitoring, therapeutic and diagnostic technologies necessary to protect themother and her unborn baby need to be employed without fear by the midwife
|Publication status||Published - 10 Sep 2011|
Bibliographical noteReference text: Sinclair MK (2001). ‘Technology in modern childbirth: midwifery managers’
perspectives’. Royal College of Midwives Journal, 4(11): 370-371.
Sinclair M.K (2003). Technology and normality in the 21st century: sharing the power base,
editorial in the Royal College of Midwives Journal 6(6): 232.
Sinclair MK and Bradbury I (2006). ‘Birth technology device: product appraisal’. RCM
Midwives, 9(1): 26-27.
Barclay L and Jones L (1996). Midwifery: trends
and practice in Australia, Melbourne: Churchill-Livingstone.
Cowie JL and Floyd SR (1998). ‘The art of midwifery: lost to technology?’ Australian
College of Midwives Incorporated Journal, 11(3): 20-24. Department of Health (1992). Assessing the effects of health technologies: principles, practice, proposals, London: Department of
Ellul J (1972). ‘The technological order’. In: Mitcham C and Mackey R (eds). Philosophy
and Technology, New York: The Free Press (a division of the Macmillan Publishing
Hatamleh R, Sinclair M, Kernohan WG et al (2008). ‘Technological childbirth in northern
Jordan: descriptive findings from a prospective cohort study’. Evidence Based
Midwifery, 6(4): 130-135.
Hemminki E and Merilainen J (1996). ‘Long term effects of caesarean sections: ectopic
pregnancies and placental problems’. American Journal of Obstetrics and
Gynecology, 174(5): 1569-1574.
Hunt S (1997). ‘A matter of feelings’. In: Jowitt M and Kargar I (eds). Radical midwifery:
celebrating 21 years of ARM, Ormskirk: Association of Radical Midwives.
Lagan BM, Sinclair MK and Kernohan WG (2010). ‘Internet use in pregnancy informs
women’s decision making: a web-based survey’. Birth, 37(2): 106-115.
Purkiss J (1998). ‘The medicalisation of childbirth’. MIDIRS Midwifery Digest, 8(1):
Sandelowski M (1988). A case of conflicting paradigms, nursing and reproductive
technology. Advances in Nursing Science, 10: 35-45.
Sinclair M (1999). Midwives’ readiness to use high technology in the labour ward,
Unpublished PhD thesis, Queen’s University, Belfast.
Wagner M (1994). Pursuing the birth machine, London: Ace Graphics.
- birth technology
- role of the midwife