Caesarean or vaginarean epidemics ? Techno-birth, risk and obstetric practice in Turkey

References

• AbouZahr, C. (2003). Safe motherhood: A brief history of the global movement 1947– 2002. British Medical Bulletin, 67(1), 13–25.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ağartan, T. (2012). Gender and health sector reform: Policies, actions and effects. In S. Dedeoğlu & A. Y. Elveren (Eds.), Gender and society in Turkey: The impact of neo-liberal policies, political Islam and EU accession (pp. 155–173). London, NY: I.B. Tauris.
   Google Scholar
• Akrich, M., & Bernike, P. (1996). Comment la naissance vient aux femmes: Les techniques de l’accouchement en France et aux Pays-Bas. Paris: Institut Edition Synthelabo.
   Google Scholar
• Armstrong, E. M. (2008). Conceiving risk, bearing responsibility: Fetal alcohol syndrome & diagnosis of moral disorder. Baltimore, MD: The John Hopkins University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Badamchi, D. K. (2014). Abortion and public reason in Turkey: A normative evaluation of the discourses of AKP and CHP. Turkish Studies, 15(1), 45–46.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bahadori, F., Hakimi, S., & Heidarzade, M. (2013). The trend of caesarean delivery in the Islamic Republic of Iran. Eastern Mediterranean Health Journal, 19, 67–70.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Balsoy, G. E. (2013). The politics of reproduction in Ottoman society (pp. 1838–1900). London: Pickering & Chatto.
   Google Scholar
• Beck, U. (1992). Risk society: Towards a new modernity. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Béhague, D. P. (2002). Beyond the simple economics of cesarean section birthing: Women’s resistance to social inequality. Culture, Medicine and Psychiatry, 26, 473–507.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chadwick, R. J., & Foster, D. (2014). Negotiating risky bodies: Childbirth and constructions of risk. Health, Risk & Society, 16(1), 68–83.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Christaens, W., & Van Teijlingen, E. R. (2009). Four meanings of medicalization: Childbirth as a case study. Salute E Societa, 8(2), 123–141.
   Google Scholar
• Cindoğlu, D., & Sayan-Cengiz, F. (2010). Türkiye’de Doğumların Medikalizasyonu: Feminist Bir Bakışla Sezaryen Problemini Düşünmek [Medicalisation of childbirth in Turkey: Reflecting on the caesarean problem from a feminist viewpoint]. In 2. Kadın Hekimlik ve Kadın Sağlığı Kongresi Kongre Kitabı (Congress Book of the 2nd Gynaecology-Obstetrics and Women's Health Congress) (pp. 51–64). Ankara: University of Ankara..
   Google Scholar
• Council of Higher Education of Turkey [Yüksekögretim Kurumu]. (2014). Türkiye’de Saglik Egitimi ve Saglik Insangücü Durum Raporu [Status report on health education and health workforce in Turkey]. Eskisehir: YÖKPublication No°2014/1.
   Google Scholar
• Coxon, K., Sandall, J., & Fulop, N. J. (2014). To what extent are women free to choose where to give birth? How discourses of risk, blame and responsibility influence birth place decisions. Health, Risk & Society, 16(1), 51–67.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davas Aksan, H. A., Ergin, I., Ciçeklioglu, M., & Samandag, B. (2011). Gender inequalities at obstetrics and gynecology departments of Turkish medical schools. Tip Egitimi Dünyasi, 32. Retrieved from http://dergipark.gov.tr/download/article-file/199233
   Google Scholar
• Davis-Floyd, R. E. (2003). Birth as an American rite of passage. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
   Google Scholar
• Davis-Floyd, R. E., & Sargent, C. F. (Eds.). (1997). Childbirth and authoritative knowledge. Crosscultural perspectives. California: University of California Press.
   Google Scholar
• Delaney, C. (1991). The seed and the soil. Gender and cosmology in Turkish village society. Berkeley & L.A: University of California Press.
   Google Scholar
• DeVries, R., Benoit, C., Van Teijlingen, E. R., & Wrede, S. (Eds.). (2001). Birth by design: Pregnancy, maternity care, and midwifery in North America and Europe. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Diniz, S. G., & Chacham, A. S. (2004). ‘The cut above’ and ‘the cut below’. The abuse of caesareans and episitomy in Sao Paolo, Brazil. Reproductive Health Matters, 12(23), 100–110.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gaskin, I. M. (2008). Ina may’s guide to childbirth. London: Vermilion.
   Google Scholar
• Gross, M., & McGoey, L. (Eds.). (2015). Routledge international handbook of ignorance studies. Oxford: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Gürtin, Z. B. (2016). Patriarchal pronatalism: Islam, secularism and the conjugal confines of the Turkish IVF boom. Reproductive Biomedicine & Society Online, 2, 39–46.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hacettepe Institute of Population Studies. (2009). Türkiye Nüfus ve Sağlık Araştırması 2008 [Population and health research 2008]. Ankara: Hacettepe Üniversitesi Nüfus Etütleri Enstitüsü.
   Google Scholar
• Hopkins, K. (2000). Are Brazilian women really choosing to deliver by cesarean? Social Science and Medicine, 51, 725–740.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jomeen, J. (2010). Choice and control in contemporary childbirth: Understanding through women’s experiences. London: Radcliffe.
   Google Scholar
• Kısa, S., Kısa, A., & Younis, M. Z. (2017). Opinions and attitudes of obstetricians and midwives in Turkey towards caesarean section and vaginal birth following a previous caesarean section. Journal of International Medical Research, 45(6), 1739–1749.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuan, C. I. (2014). Suffering twice: The gender politics of cesarean sections in Taiwan. Medical Anthropology Quarterly, 28(3), 399–418.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kukla, R. (2005). Mass hysteria. Medicine, culture and mothers’ bodies. Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Lane, K. (2015). Pluralist risk cultures: The sociology of childbirth in Vanuatu. Health, Risk & Society, 17(5–6), 349–367.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lauer, J. A., Betran, A. P., Merialdi, M., & Wojdyla, D. (2010). Determinants of caesarean section rates in developed countries: Supply, demand and opportunities for control. Geneva: WHO Report, Background Paper 29.
   Google Scholar
• Leone, T., Padmadas, S. S., & Matthews, Z. (2008). Community factors affecting rising caesarean section rates in developing countries: An analysis of six countries. Social Science and Medicine, 67, 1236–1246.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Letsch, C. (2012, July 13). Turkish doctors face fines for elective caesareans. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/jul/13/turkish-doctors-fines-elective-caesareans
   Google Scholar
• Lupton, D. (1993). Risk as moral danger: The social and political functions of risk discourse in public health. International Journal of Health Services, 23(3), 425–435.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Macvarish, J. (2016). Neuroparenting. The expert invasion of family life. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan.
   Google Scholar
• Maffi, I. (2013). Can caesarean section be ‘natural’? The hybrid nature of the nature- culture dichotomy in mainstream obstetric culture. Tidsskrift for Forskning I Syg- Dom Og Samfund, 19, 5–26.
   Google Scholar
• Manca, T. (2016). Health professionals and the vaccine narrative: ‘The power of the personal story’ and the management of medical uncertainty. Health, Risk & Society, 18(3–4), 114–136.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maternity Care Working Party, 2007. Making normal birth a reality. consensus statement from the maternity care working party our shared views about the need to recognise, facilitate and audit normal birth. London: NCT, RCM and RCOG
   Google Scholar
• Mc Callum, C. (2005). Explaining caesarean section in Salvador da Bahia, Brazil. Sociology of Health & Illness, 27(2), 215–242.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mello e Souza, C. (1994). C-sections as ideal births: The cultural construction of beneficence and patients’ rights in Brazil. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 3, 358–366.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ministry of Health of Turkey. (2010). Dogum ve Sezaryen Eylemi Yönetim Rehberi [Guide for the management of birth and caesarean]. Ankara: Republic of Turkey Ministry of Health.
   Google Scholar
• Ministry of Health of Turkey. (2016). Health statistics year book 2015. Ankara: Republic of Turkey Ministry of Health.
   Google Scholar
• Ministry of Health of Turkey. (2017). Health statistics year book 2016. Ankara: Republic of Turkey Ministry of Health.
   Google Scholar
• Morris, T. (2013). Cut it out. The C-section epidemic in America. New York: NYU Press.
   Google Scholar
• Odent, M. (1992). The nature of birth and breastfeeding. New York: Praeger.
   Google Scholar
• Power, M. (2004). The risk management of everthing: Rethinking the politics of uncertainty. London: DEMOS.
   Google Scholar
• Roberts, E. F. S. (2012). Scars of the nation: Surgical penetration and the Ecuadorian state. The Journal of Latin American and Caribbean Anthropology, 17(2), 215–237.
   Google Scholar
• Rosa, H. (2015). Social acceleration: A new theory of modernity. Columbia: Columbia University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rothman, B. K. (1991). In labor: Women and power in the birthplace. New York: W.W. Norton & Co.
   Google Scholar
• Rothstein, H. (2006). Editorial. The institutional origins of risk: A new agenda for risk research. Health, Risk & Society, 8(3), 215–221.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sarda, G. (2011). Artificially maintained scientific controversies, the construction of maternal choice and caesarean section rates. Social Theory & Health, 9(2), 166-182. doi:10.1057/sth.2010.12
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scamell, M. (2014). Childbirth within the risk society. Sociology Compass, 8(7), 917‐28.
   Google Scholar
• Scamell, M., & Alaszewski, A. (2012). Fateful moments and the categorisation of risk: Midwifery practice and the ever-narrowing window of normality during childbirth. Health, Risk & Society, 14(2), 207‐21.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scamell, M., & Stewart, M. (2014). Time, risk and midwife practice: The vaginal examination. Health, Risk & Society, 16(1), 84‐100.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schantz, C., Sim, K. L., Ly, E. M., Barennes, H., Sudaroth, S., & Goyet, S. (2015). Reasons for routine episiotomy: A mixed-methods study in a large maternity hospital in Phnom Penh, Cambodia. Reproductive Health Matters, 23(45), 68–77.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sümer, S., & Eslen-Ziya, H. (2017). New ways for old rights? Women’s mobilization and bodily rights in Turkey and Norway. European Journal of Women’s Studies, 24(1), 23–38.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wagner, M. (2000). Choosing caesarean cection. The Lancet, 356, 1677–1680.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• WHO. (2015a). WHO statement on caesarean section rates. Geneva: Author. Retrieved from http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/161442/1/WHO_RHR_15.02_eng.pdf?ua=1
   Google Scholar
• WHO. (2015b). Trends in maternal mortality: 1990 to 2015. estimates by WHO, UNICEF, UNFPA, World Bank Group and the United Nations population division. Geneva: Author. Retrieved from http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/194254/9789241565141_eng.pdf;jsessionid=D2013020A9C636AB516D97143A89C40C?sequence=1
   Google Scholar
• Wolf, J. (2018). Cesarean Section. An American history of risk, technology and consequence. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wynne, B. (1996). May the sheep safely graze? A reflexive view of the expert-lay knowledge divide. In S. Lash, B. Szerszynski, & B. Wynne (Eds.), Risk, environment and modernity (pp. 44–83). London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Yazıcı, B. (2012). The return to the family: Welfare, state and the politics of family in Turkey. Anthropological Quarterly, 85(1), 103–140.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar