Contribution short abstract:

This paper questions whether the written birth plan has deviated from its intended use by current technocratic medical institutions. Additionally, it will explore whether writing a birth plan is ultimately beneficial for women in the context of the unpredictability of childbirth and labour.

Contribution long abstract:

Labour and childbirth are liminal spaces that are widely considered to be vulnerable and unpredictable experiences for women. The written birth plan has aimed to give women the power of choice and a semblance of control during these processes. However, I ask the question: ‘is a written birth plan actually in a woman’s best interest?’ Maternity services in the UK, and who has held the power of choice therein, have historically gone through several pendulum swings. After the introduction of the National Health Service in 1948, childbirth practice was heavily male led until the second feminist movement of the 1970s that demanded autonomy be placed back in the hands of women. This led to an increase in midwives and natural birth practices, and the creation of the written birth plan. While created with good intentions, there is often a difference between what looks good on paper versus the unwritten experience of real life. Grounded in my own ethnographic field work, and supported by current quantitative and qualitative medical research, I aim to evaluate whether creating a birth plan is ultimately beneficial for women within the reality that labour and birth experiences are innately unpredictable and rarely follow a script. Additionally, I want to explore whether the birth plan--once a counterhegemonic response to the patriarchal medical treatment of childbirth--has now itself become a tool used by technocratic medical institutions as a safe-guarding tick box exercise.