Any study of radical care needs to pay attention to the institution as a place of care. Yet, institutions have been more readily associated with failures of care than successes. We undertake close reading of the Ockenden Review of maternity services in a National Health Service hospital trust in England, concerning a large number of families that received inadequate care during pregnancy and birth, including investigations of adverse outcomes such as deaths of babies and mothers. We argue that (...) to enable better care in the institution requires a close attention to its institutional nature, particularly its scale, bureaucratic mode and functions, and the professional identities that work within it, and the ways they shape the practice of emotion. (shrink)

In this issue of the JME, age-old questions around how to balance the interests of mother and fetus are revisited in two separate contexts: alcohol consumption during pregnancy, and maternal request caesarean sections. Both have been the subject of recent controversy in the UK, with March 2022 seeing the introduction of new National Institute for Clinical Excellence Quality Standards on combatting foetal alcohol spectrum disorder 1; and the publication of the long-awaited Ockenden Review into a series of failures (...) in NHS maternity care.2 Both raise important questions about the role of healthcare professionals in policing women’s choices during pregnancy and childbirth, and of the importance of deference to and trust in those choices. In this issue’s Feature Article, Rebecca Bennett and Catherine Bowden explore recent proposals to enhance the screening of pregnant women in order to prevent instances of fetal alcohol spectrum disorder through more accurately determining the true prevalence of alcohol consumption during pregnancy.3 Public Health England has suggested research into tools such as blood biomarkers and meconium testing,4 which could better identify those women who are consuming alcohol ‘covertly’ and so make FASD diagnoses more straightforward. As Bennett and Bowden rightly suggest, such a move is unlikely to realise the kind of public health or welfare gains which would justify this level of interference with the women’s autonomy, and may even result in more harm through discouraging engagement with antenatal care. However even absent these very intrusive methods of surveillance, the precautionary principle which underpins such policies — namely that in the absence of evidence that any alcohol is safe, women should be instructed to avoid it altogether — is itself difficult to justify. The evidence on alcohol consumption during pregnancy is mixed. While it is widely accepted that heavy …. (shrink)

This item contains information about the Author Guidelines.