Current Issue
Issues
Aim & Scope
Open Access
Indexing
Why publish with us
Contact
Editorial Board
Manuscript Types
Manuscript Formatting
How to submit
For readers
For librarians
Authorship & COI
Principles of Transparency Checklist
Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement
CrossMark
Data Policies
RESEARCH PAPER
Ποιοτική κοινωνιολογική προσέγγιση της ιατρο-τεχνολογικής παρέμβασης στην περιγεννητική φροντίδα.
Η επίδραση του βιοϊατρικού λόγου και βλέμματος στην παθητικότητα της εγκύου/επιτόκου
1
University of the Aegean, School of Social Sciences, Department of Sociology
Submission date: 2025-03-27
Final revision date: 2025-10-28
Acceptance date: 2025-12-05
Publication date: 2025-12-31
Corresponding author
Κατερίνα Α. Αναστασίου
Τμήμα Κοινωνιολογίας, Σχολή Κοινωνικών Επιστημών, Πανεπιστήμιο Αιγαίου, Μυτιλήνη, Ελλάδα
Τμήμα Κοινωνιολογίας, Σχολή Κοινωνικών Επιστημών, Πανεπιστήμιο Αιγαίου, Μυτιλήνη, Ελλάδα
ΕΛΕΥΘΩ 2025;24(4):10
KEYWORDS
TOPICS
ABSTRACT
Introduction:
The purpose of this article is to contribute to understanding of the impact of biomedical discourse and gaze on attitude/behavior of pregnant/woman who gives birth, through the analysis/interpretation of medical-technological intervention.
Methods:
Within this narrative review a content analysis and interpretive approaches to discourse are conducted regarding impact of medical-technological intervention on pregnant/woman who gives birth and to doctor as well in medicaltechnological environment. The concepts of “viewing” and “self-viewing” are used, and reasoning is expanded, including influence of cultural control mechanisms, transferred to modern medical-technological environment. The interpretations are articulated with concepts of poststructuralist theory.
Results:
Medical-technological intervention gradually contributes to (co)structuring of an invisible network of power relations that tends to consolidate passivity of body of pregnant/woman who gives birth.
Conclusions:
Our findings shed light on obscure aspects of the phenomenon and can function in conjunction with medical/obstetrical research, which is usually quantitative. It is proposed to conduct interdisciplinary field research (qualitative and quantitative) to assess the impact of medical-technological intervention on the active/passive role of pregnant women who give birth.
The purpose of this article is to contribute to understanding of the impact of biomedical discourse and gaze on attitude/behavior of pregnant/woman who gives birth, through the analysis/interpretation of medical-technological intervention.
Methods:
Within this narrative review a content analysis and interpretive approaches to discourse are conducted regarding impact of medical-technological intervention on pregnant/woman who gives birth and to doctor as well in medicaltechnological environment. The concepts of “viewing” and “self-viewing” are used, and reasoning is expanded, including influence of cultural control mechanisms, transferred to modern medical-technological environment. The interpretations are articulated with concepts of poststructuralist theory.
Results:
Medical-technological intervention gradually contributes to (co)structuring of an invisible network of power relations that tends to consolidate passivity of body of pregnant/woman who gives birth.
Conclusions:
Our findings shed light on obscure aspects of the phenomenon and can function in conjunction with medical/obstetrical research, which is usually quantitative. It is proposed to conduct interdisciplinary field research (qualitative and quantitative) to assess the impact of medical-technological intervention on the active/passive role of pregnant women who give birth.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The author has completed and submitted the ICMJE Form for
Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest and none was reported.
FUNDING
There was no source of funding for this research.
ETHICAL APPROVAL
Ethical approval and informed consent were not required for this study.
DATA AVAILABILITY
The data supporting this research are available from the author on
reasonable request.
PEER REVIEW INFORMATION
Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
REFERENCES (59)
1.
Αθανασίου Α. Το φύλο και η σεξουαλικότητα στους λόγους και τις πρακτικές της βιο-επιστήμης: επιστημολογίες και τεχνολογίες του έμφυλου σώματος. Στο: Αστρινάκη Ρ, Χαντζαρούλα Π, Αθανασίου Α. Μελέτες για το φύλο στην ανθρωπολογία και την ιστορία. Αλεξάνδρεια; 2011: 227-343.
2.
Balsamo A. Technologies of the Gendered Body. Reading Cyborg Women. Duke University Press; 1996. Accessed December 30, 2025. https://monoskop.org/images/5/53/Balsamo_Anne_Technologies_of_the_Gendered_Body_Reading_Cyborg_Women_1995.pdf
3.
Critical Art Ensemble. Η μηχανή της σάρκας. Γραμμένου Ι, Παπάζογλου Σ, μετ. Εκδόσεις των Ξένων; 2006.
4.
Balsamo A. Στην κόψη του ξυραφιού: κοσμητική χειρουργική και νέες τεχνολογίες απεικόνισης. Στο: Μακρυνιώτη Δ, επιμ. Αθανάσιου Κ, Καψαμπέλη Κ, Κονδύλη Μ, Παρασκευόπουλου Θ, μετ. Τα Όρια του σώματος. Διεπιστημονικές προσεγγίσεις. Νήσος; 2004: 315-332.
5.
Davis-Floyd RE. The technocratic body: american childbirth as cultural expression. Soc Sci Med. 1994; 38(8): 1125-1140. doi: 10.1016/0277-9536(94)90228-3
6.
Αναστασίου ΑΚ. Οι αθέατες όψεις της πολιτικής διαχείρισης του τοκετού στην ύστερη νεωτερικότητα: Από τον πόνο έως τον βιασμό. Από την ευεξία έως τον οργασμό. Στο: Τζανάκη Δ, επιμ. Υγεία, καύλα και επανάσταση. Ασίνη; 2021: 599-628.
8.
Φουκό Μ. Το μάτι της εξουσίας. Στο: Σολομών Ι, Κουζέλη Γ, επιμ. Πειθαρχία και Γνώση. Εταιρεία Μελέτης των Επιστημών του Ανθρώπου; 1994: 11-24.
10.
Hayes-Klein H, ed. Conference Papers/Human Rights in Childbirth, International Conference of Jurists, Midwives & Obstetricians. Bynkershoek Publishing; 2012.
11.
Women’s History Month: Sheila Kitzinger. Women’s History Network. March 29, 2010. Accessed December 30, 2025. https://womenshistorynetwork.org/womens-history-monthsheila-kitzinger/
12.
Bortin S, Alzugaray M, Dowd J, Kalman J. A feminist perspective on the study of home birth. Application of a midwifery care framework. J Nurse Midwifery. 1994; 39(3): 142-149. doi: 10.1016/0091-2182(94)90096-5
13.
Spitzack C. The confession mirror: plastic images for surgery. Can J Polit Soc Theory. 1988; 12(1-2): 38-50.
14.
Rothman KB. Birth matters: learning from my past - midwifery for the future. In: Earle S, Letherby G, eds. Palgrave Macmillan; 2003: 74-102.
17.
Petrozziello A, Jordanov I, Aris Papageorghiou T, Christopher Redman WG, Georgieva A. Deep learning for continuous electronic fetal monitoring in labor. Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2018; 2018: 5866-5869. doi: 10.1109/EMBC.2018.8513625
18.
Purkis J. The quintessential female act? Learning about birth. In: Earle S, Letherby G, eds. Gender, Identity & Reproduction: Social Perspectives. Palgrave McMillan; 2003: 103–119.
19.
de Vries R, Buitendijk SE. Science, safety and place of birth - lessons from The Netherlands. Eur Obstet Gynaecol Suppl. 2012; 7(1): 13-17.
20.
O’Keeffe DF, Abuhamad A. Obstetric ultrasound utilization in the United States: data from various health plans. Semin Perinatol. 2013; 37(5): 292-294. doi: 10.1053/j.semperi.2013.06.003
22.
Williams EL, Casanova MF. Potential teratogenic effects of ultrasound on corticogenesis: implications for autism. Med Hypotheses. 2010; 75(1): 53-58. doi: 10.1016/j.mehy.2010.01.027
23.
Margulis J. The business of baby: What doctors don’t tell you, what corporations try to sell you, and how to put your baby before their bottom line. Scribner; 2013.
24.
Intrapartum care. (NG235). NICE guideline. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). September 29, 2023. Updated November 14, 2025. Accessed December 30, 2025. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng235/resources/intrapartum-care-pdf-66143897812933
25.
Perez–Botella M, van Lessen L, Morano S, de Jonge A. What works to promote physiological labour and birth for healthy women and babies?. In: Downe S, Byrom S, eds. Squaring the circle: Normal birth research, theory and practice in a technological age. Pinter and Martin Ltd; 2019: 54-66.
26.
Soliday E. Childbirth in a technocratic age: The documentations of women’s expectations and experiences. Amherst; 2012.
27.
Mohan M, Ramawat J, La Monica G, et al. Electronic intrapartum fetal monitoring: a systematic review of international clinical practice guidelines. AJOG Glob Rep. 2021; 1(2): 100008. doi: 10.1016/j.xagr.2021.100008
28.
Bewley S, Braillon A. Electronic fetal heart rate monitoring: we need new research approaches. BMJ. 2018; 360: k658. doi: 10.1136/bmj.k658
29.
Mullins E, Lees C, Brocklehurst P. Is continuous electronic fetal monitoring useful for all women in labour?. BMJ. 2017; 359: j5423. doi: 10.1136/bmj.j5423
30.
Wickham S. Fetal monitoring and cherry picking evidence. November 21, 2024. Accessed December 30, 2025. https://www.sarawickham.com/topic-resources/fetal-monitoring-research-resources/
31.
Sartwelle TP, Johnston JC. Continuous electronic fetal monitoring during Labor: a critique and a reply to contemporary proponents. Surg J (N Y). 2018; 4(1): e23-e28. doi: 10.1055/s-0038-1632404
32.
Tamber KK, Hayes DJL, Carey SJ, Wijekoon JHB, Heazell AEP. A systematic scoping review to identify the design and assess the performance of devices for antenatal continuous fetal monitoring. PLoS One. 2020; 15(12): e0242983. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0242983
33.
Al Wattar BH, Honess E, Bunnewell S, et al. Effectiveness of intrapartum fetal surveillance to improve maternal and neonatal outcomes: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. CMAJ. 2021; 193(14): E468-E477. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.202538
34.
Li S, Yang Q, Niu S, Liu Y. Effectiveness of remote fetal monitoring on maternal-fetal outcomes: systematic review and meta-analysis. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2023; 11: e41508. doi: 10.2196/41508
36.
Sartwelle TP, Johnston JC, Arda B. A half century of electronic fetal monitoring and bioethics: silence speaks louder than words. Matern Health Neonatol Perinatol. 2017; 3: 21. doi: 10.1186/s40748-017-0060-2
38.
Lock M. Ιατρική γνώση και πολιτική του σώματος. Στο: Αθανασίου Α, επιμ. Βιοκοινωνικότητες. Θεωρήσεις στην Ανθρωπολογία της Υγείας. Νήσος; 2011: 89-116.
39.
Nettleton S. Κοινωνιολογία της υγείας και της ασθένειας. Τυπωθήτω–Γιώργος Δαρδανός; 2002.
40.
Prenatal Ultrasound - Not So Sound After All. Children’s Health Defense Team. August 20, 2019. Accessed December 30, 2025. https://childrenshealthdefense.org/news/prenatal-ultrasound-not-so-sound-after-all/
41.
Αλεξιάς Γ. Κοινωνιολογία του σώματος. Από τον «άνθρωπο του Νεάτερνταλ» στον «εξολοθρευτή». Πεδίο; 2011.
43.
Hollander M, van Dillen J, Lagro-Janssen T, van Leeuwen E, Duijst W, Vanderbussche F. Women refusing standard obstetric care: maternal fetal conflict or doctor-patient conflict? J Pregnancy Child Health. 2016; 3(2): 1-5.
47.
Σολομών Ι. Πειθαρχία και γνώση: εισαγωγικές σημειώσεις. Στο: Σολομών Ι, Κουζέλη Γ, επιμ. Πειθαρχία και Γνώση. Εταιρεία Μελέτης των Επιστημών του Ανθρώπου; 1994: 7-10
48.
Τρουλινού Λ. Εξουσία και δίκαιο στον Φουκό. Στο: Φουκό Μ. Η μικροφυσική της εξουσίας. Ύψιλον; 1991: 170-182.
49.
Φουκώ Μ. Επιτήρηση και τιμωρία. Η γέννηση της φυλακής. Χατζηδήμου Κ, Ράλλη Ι, μετ. Ράππας; 2005.
50.
Αθανασίου Α, επιμ. Βιοκοινωνικότητες. Θεωρήσεις στην ανθρωπολογία της υγείας. Νήσος; 2011.
51.
Rapp R. Κατασκευάζοντας την αμνιοπαρακέντηση: λόγοι μητρότητας και ιατρικής. Στο: Αθανασίου Α, επιμ. Βιοκοινωνικότητες. Θεωρήσεις στην Ανθρωπολογία της Υγείας. Νήσος; 2011: 463-488.
52.
Birke L. Σώμα και βιολογία. Στο: Μακρυνιώτη Δ, επιμ. Τα Όρια του σώματος. Διεπιστημονικές προσεγγίσεις. Νήσος; 2004: 149-160.
53.
Braidotti R. Σημάδια θαύματος και ίχνη αμφιβολίας; Περί τερατολογίας και σωματοποιημένων διαφορών. Στο: Μακρυνιώτη Δ, επιμ. Τα Όρια του σώματος. Διεπιστημονικές προσεγγίσεις. Νήσος; 2004: 161-177.
55.
Balsamo A. Forms of technological embodiment: reading the body in contemporary culture. In: Featherstone M, Burrows R. Cyberspace, cyberbodies, cyberpunk. Cultures of technological embodiment. Sage; 2000: 215-237
56.
Φουκώ Μ. Ιστορία της σεξουαλικότητας. Η Βούληση για γνώση. Μπέτζελος Τ, μετ. Πλέθρον; 2011.
57.
Μακρυνιώτη Δ, επιμ. Τα όρια του σώματος. Διεπιστημονικές προσεγγίσεις. Νήσος; 2004.
58.
Τζανάκη Δ. Φύλο & σεξουαλικότητα. Ξεριζώνοντας το «ανθρώπινο» [1801–1925]. Ακροβατώντας με την κυβερνητικότητα στα άδυτα της δικανικής Αφροδίτης, της ψυχιατρικής, της εγκληματολογίας, της σεξολογίας, της ψυχανάλυσης και της ψύχωσης. Ασίνη; 2018.
Share
RELATED ARTICLE
| ISSN: | 1106-6822 |
We process personal data collected when visiting the website. The function of obtaining information about users and their behavior is carried out by voluntarily entered information in forms and saving cookies in end devices. Data, including cookies, are used to provide services, improve the user experience and to analyze the traffic in accordance with the Privacy policy. Data are also collected and processed by Google Analytics tool (more).
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
