Prenatal diagnosis and selective abortion: A result of the cultural turn?

Medical Humanities

Volumn 32, Issue 1, 2006, Pages 38-42

  Bromage, Dan I ^a  

^a Centre for Ethics in Medicine   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AMNIOCENTESIS; ARTICLE; ATTITUDE TO DISABILITY; BLOOD SAMPLING; CHORION VILLUS SAMPLING; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DECISION MAKING; DOWN SYNDROME; ESTHETIC SURGERY; EXPECTANT PARENT; GENE THERAPY; GENETIC DISORDER; GENETIC RISK; GENETIC SCREENING; HEALTH CARE COST; HEALTH PROGRAM; HUMAN; MEDICAL PRACTICE; MEDICAL RESEARCH; MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY; MORALITY; PARENTAL ATTITUDE; PHYSICAL DISABILITY; PREGNANCY TERMINATION; PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS; PROSTHESIS; QUALITY OF LIFE; RISK ASSESSMENT; SELECTIVE ABORTION; SOCIAL EVOLUTION; SPONTANEOUS ABORTION;

ANALYTICAL APPROACH; GENETICS AND REPRODUCTION;

ABORTION, EUGENIC; ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; CULTURE; DISABLED PERSONS; FEMALE; HUMANS; PERSONAL AUTONOMY; POSTMODERNISM; PREGNANCY; PREJUDICE; PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS; SOCIAL VALUES;

EID: 33745183795     PISSN: 1468215X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/jmh.2004.000208     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Gelherter T, Collins F, Ginsburg D. Principles of medical genetics. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1998:4.
2. Bionews. NICE recommends changes to antenatal screening, Available at www.bionews.org.uk (accessed 22 October 2003).
3. Russell O. Supporting families to make informed decisions: how can we safeguard genetic diversity while respecting parents' 'right to choose'? In Considered choices? the new genetics, prenatal testing and people with learning disabilities, In: Ward L, eds. Kidderminster: British Institute of Learning Disabilities Publications, 2001:54.
4. Harris R, Washington E, Nease R, et al. Cost utility of prenatal diagnosis and the risk-based threshold. Lancet 2004;363:276.
5. Bionews. Study recommends antenatal screening for Fragile X. Available at www.bionews.org.uk (accessed 3 September 2003).
6. Bionews. National genetic screening programmes are needed. Available at www.bionews.org.uk (accessed 13 March 2000).
7. Advisory Committee on Genetic Testing. Prenatal genetic testing: report for consultation. London: Human Genetics Commission, 2000.
8. Petrou S, Mugford M. Should prenatal diagnostic testing be offered to all pregnant women on economic grounds? Lancet 2004;363:258.
9. Bionews. Call to offer amniocentesis to all women. Available at www.bionews.org.uk (accessed 26 January 2004).
10. The Daily Mail, 01 July 2004.
11. Alderson P. Some unanswered questions. In: Considered choices? The new genetics, prenatal testing and people with learning disabilities, In: Ward L, ed. Kidderminster: British Institute of Learning Disabilities Publications, 2001.
12. Saxton M. Disability rights and selective abortion. Cited in Solinger R (ed) Abortion wars, a half century of struggle, 1950-2000 Berkeley. University of California Press, 1997.
13. Cited in Asch A, Parens E. The disability rights critique of prenatal genetic testing. Hastings Centre Report Secial Supplement, 1999:2.
14. Ward L. Whose right to choose? The 'new' genetics, prenatal testing and people with learning difficulties. Critical Public Health 2002;12:192.
15. Campbell A. Medical ethics, 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001.
16. Bailey R. Prenatal testing and the prevention of impairment: a woman's right to choose? In: Morris J, ed. Encounters with strangers, feminism and disability. London, The Women's Press, 1996:156.
17. Kaplan D. Prenatal screening and diagnosis: the impact on persons with disabilities. In: Rothenberg K, Thomson E, eds. Women and prenatal testing (facing the challenges of genetic technology). Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1994:50.
18. The Times, 2 December, 2003.
19. Asch A, Parens E. The disability rights critique of prenatal genetic testing: reflections and recommendations. Hastings Cent Rep 1999;29:s1-s22.
20. Klages M. Postmodernism Available at http://www.colorado.edu/English/ ENGL2012Klages/pomo.html (accessed March 2003).
21. Kant I. Foundations of the metaphysics of morals; and what is enlightenment? In: White Beck L, eds. Bobbs-Merrill: Indianapolis, 1959.
22. Hughes B. Medicine and the aesthetic invalidation of disabled people. Disabil Soc 2000;15:559.
23. Hughes B. Bauman's strangers: impairment and the invalidation of disabled people in modern and post-modern societies. Disabil Soc 2002;17:575.
24. Hughes B. The constitution of impairment: modernity and the aesthetic of oppression. Disabil Soc 1999;14:157.
25. Lucie-Smith E. Movements in art since 1945. London: Thames and Hudson, 2000:29.
26. Sarup M. An introductory guide to post-modernism, 2nd ed. Harvester Wheatsheaf: Hemel Hempstead, 1993:132.
27. Morris D. Illness and society in the post-modern age. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000:29.
28. Synnott A. The body social: symbolism, self and society. London: Routledge, 1993.
29. Cited in Hughes B. Medicine and the aesthetic invalidation of disabled people. Disabil Soc, 2000;15:555-68.
30. Lowe D. The body in the late capitalist USA. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1995.
31. Cited in Morris D. Illness and society in the post-modern age. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000:155.