Nursing and genetics: A feminist critique moves us towards transdisciplinary teams

Nursing Ethics

Volumn 7, Issue 3, 2000, Pages 191-204

  Anderson, Gwen w ^a   Monsen, Rita Black ^b   Rorty, Mary Varney ^a  

^a STANFORD UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b Ledgerwood Circle ^*  (United States)

Author keywords

feminist ethics; genetic nursing; Human Genome Project; transdisciplinary

Indexed keywords

COMPETITIVE BEHAVIOR; DOCTOR NURSE RELATION; FEMINISM; GENETIC COUNSELING; GENETIC SERVICE; GENETICS; GENETICS AND REPRODUCTION; HEALTH; HEALTH CARE AND PUBLIC HEALTH; HUMAN; INTERDISCIPLINARY COMMUNICATION; MEDICAL ETHICS; MEDICAL GENETICS; MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY; MODEL; NURSE ATTITUDE; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT; PATIENT CARE; PHILOSOPHY; PROFESSIONAL STANDARD; REVIEW; SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY;

GENETICS AND REPRODUCTION; HEALTH CARE AND PUBLIC HEALTH;

COMPETITIVE BEHAVIOR; ETHICS, NURSING; FEMINISM; GENETIC COUNSELING; GENETIC RESEARCH; GENETIC SERVICES; GENETICS, MEDICAL; HOLISTIC HEALTH; HUMANS; INTERDISCIPLINARY COMMUNICATION; MODELS, NURSING; NURSE'S ROLE; PATIENT CARE TEAM; PHYSICIAN-NURSE RELATIONS; PROFESSIONAL ROLE; SOCIAL VALUES; TECHNOLOGY, MEDICAL; WORLD HEALTH;

EID: 0034181256     PISSN: 09697330     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/096973300000700302     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Rokusek C. An introduction to the concept of interdisciplinary practice. In: Thyer B, Kropf N, eds. Developmental disabilities: a handbook for interdisciplinary practice. Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books, 1995: 4-12.
2. Tuana N, Tong R. Feminism and philosophy: essential reading in theory, reinterpretation and application. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1995.
3. Bunting S, Campbell J. Feminism and nursing: historical perspective. Adv Nurs Sci 1990; 12(4): 11-24.
4. Norsen L, Opladen J, Quinn J. Practice model: collaborative practice. Crit Care Nurs ClinNorth Am 1995; 7: 43-52.
5. Ornstein H. Collaborative practice between Ontario nurses and physicians: is it possible? Can J Nurs Admin 1990; 3(4): 10-14.
6. Ketner Lain K. An implicit world view in technology and its consequences for contemporary life. Nurs Outlook 1996; 44: 280-283.
7. Taylor C. The ethics of authenticity, seventh edition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1997.
8. Heidegger M. The phenomenological method of investigation in being and time. In: Krell DF, ed. Basic writings: from being and time to the task of thinking. New York, NY: Harper and Row, 1977: 72-89.
9. Sandelowski M. ( Ir)Reconcilable differences? The debate concerning nursing and technology. Image J Nurs Schol 1997; 29: 169-174.
10. Reverby S. Ordered to care: the dilemma of American nursing, 1850-1945. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 1987.
11. Chambliss D. Hospitals, nurses and the social organization of ethics. Chicago, IL: University ofChicago Press, 1995: 120-149.
12. Benjamin M, Curtis J. Ethics in nursing. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992.
13. Harding S. Value-laden technologies and the politics of nursing. In: Spicker S, Gadow S, eds. Nursing: images and ideals. New York: Springer Publishing, 1980: 49-75.
14. Aroskar M. Envisioning nursing as a moral community. Nurs Outlook 1995; 43: 134-138.
15. Allen D, Benner P, Diekelmann N. Three paradigms for research: methodological implications. In: Chinn P, ed. Nursing research methodology: issues and implications. Rockville, MD: Aspen, 1986: 23-38.
16. Schumacher K, Gortner S. ( Mis)conceptions and reconceptions about traditional science. AdvNurs Sci 1992; 14(4): 1-11.
17. Silva M, Sorrell J, Sorrell C. From Carper’s patterns of knowing to ways of being: an ontological philosophical shift in nursing. Adv Nurs Sci 1995; 18(1): 1-13.
18. Belenky M, Clinchy B, Goldberger N, Tarule J. Women’s ways of knowing: the development of self, voice and mind. New York, NY: Basic Books, 1986.
19. Benner P, Wruble J. The primacy of caring. Menlo Park, CA: Addison Wesley, 1988.
20. Warnke G. Feminism and hermeneutics. Hypatia 1993; 8(1): 81-98.
21. Harding S. Whose science? Whose knowledge? Thinking from women’s lives. Ithaca, NY: CornellUniversity Press, 1991: 51-76.
22. Elliott C. A philosophical disease. London: Routledge, 1999.
23. Barry P, ed. Psychosocial nursing care of physically ill patients and their families. Hartford, CT: Lippincott, 1996: 54-77.
24. Morse J, Solberg S, Neander W, Bottorff J, Johnson J. Concepts of caring and caring as a concept. Adv Nurs Sci 1990; 13(1): 1-14.
25. Gilligan C. In a different voice: psychological theory and women’s development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1982.
26. Noddings, N. Caring: a feminist approach to ethics and moral education. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1984: 79-103.
27. Katz Rothman B. Genetic maps and human imaginations: the limits of science in understanding who we are. New York, NY: Norton, 1999.
28. Yol Jung H. The genealogy of technological rationality in the human sciences. Res PhilosTechnol 1989; 9: 59-82.
29. Martin K. Coordinating multidisciplinary, collaborative research: a formula for success. ClinNurse Specialist 1994; 8(1): 18-22.
30. Carper B. Fundamental patterns of knowing in nursing. Adv Nurs Sci 1978; 1(1): 13-23.
31. Anderson G. Creating moral space in prenatal genetics. Qualitative Health Res 1998; 8: 168-187.
32. Rosenfield P. The potential of transdisciplinary research for sustaining and extending linkages between the health and social sciences. Soc Sci Med 1992; 35: 1343-1357.
33. Orelove F, Sobsey D. Educating children with multiple disabilities: a transdisciplinary approach. Baltimore, MD: Brookes, 1996.
34. Anderson G. Prenatal genetic services signal a much deeper problem in health care delivery [Response to case study]. Nurs Ethics 1999; 6: 255-257.
35. Jaffe K, Walsh P. The development of the specialty rehabilitation home care team: supporting the creative thought. Holistic Nurs Pract 1993; 7(4): 36-41.
36. Kenen R. Genetic counseling: the development of a new interdisciplinary occupational field. Soc Sci Med 1984; 18: 541-549.
37. Ferrer N, Navarra T. Issues in collaborative practice. Professional boundaries: clarifying roles and goals. Cancer Pract 1994; 2: 3111-3112.
38. Watson J. NLN perspective: President’s message: From disciplinary specific to ‘inter’ to‘multi’ to ‘transdisciplinary’ health care education and practice. Nurs Health Care 1996; 17: 90-91.
39. Ryan-Vincek S, Tuesday-Heathfield L, Lamorey S. From theory to practice: a pilot study of team members’ perspectives on transdisciplinary service delivery. Infant Toddler Interventions 1995; 5: 153-176.
40. Sherwin S. Feminist and medical ethics: two different approaches to contextual ethics. In: Holmes, H, Purdy L, eds. Feminist perspectives in medical ethics. Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1992: 17-31.
41. Hoeman S. A research-based transdisciplinary team model for infants with special needs and their families. Holistic Nurs Pract 1993; 7(4): 63-72.