Prenatal genetic technologies and the social control of pregnant women: A review of the key issues

Marriage and Family Review

Volumn 45, Issue 5, 2009, Pages 448-468

  Ettorre, Elizabeth ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LIVERPOOL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Disabilities; Family health; Genetics; Prenatal technologies; Reproduction

Indexed keywords

EID: 72449163535     PISSN: 01494929     EISSN: 15409635     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/01494920903050680     Document Type: Article

References (132)

1. Aalfs, C. M., Smets, E. M. A., Hanneke, C. J. M., & Leschot, N. J. (2003). Referral for genetic counselling during pregnancy: Limited alertness and awareness about genetic risk factors among GPs. Family Practice, 20(2), 135-141.
2. Abberley, P. (1996). Work, utopia and impairment. In L. Barton (Ed.), Disability and society: Emerging Issues and Insights. Harlow, Essex, UK: Longman.
3. Advisory Committee on Genetic Testing. (2000). Prenatal genetic testing. London: Department of Health.
4. Alderson, P., Aro, A., Dragonas, T., Ettorre, E., Hemminki, E., Jallinoja, P., Santalahti, P., & Tymstra, T. (2001). Prenatal screening and genetics. European Journal of Public Health, 11, 231-233.
5. American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology. (2007). ACOG practice bulletin no. 77: Screening for fetal chromosomal abnormalities. Obstetrics & Gynecology, 109, 217-228.
6. Annandale, E., & Clark, J. (1996). What is gender? Feminist theory and the sociology of human reproduction. Sociology of Health and Illness, 18(1), 17-44.
7. Atkin, K., & Ahmad, W. (1998). Genetic screening and hemoglobinopathies: Ethics, politics and practice. Social Science and Medicine, 46(3), 445-458.
8. Badagliacco, J., & Ruiz, C. (2006). Impoverished Appalachia and Kentucky genomes: What is at stake? New Genetics and Society, 25(2), 133-143.
9. Barnes, C. (1992). Institutional discrimination against disabled people and the campaign for anti-discrimination legislation. Critical Social Policy, 12(1), 5-22.
10. Barnes, C., & Mercer, G. (Eds.). (1996). Exploring the divide, illness and disability. Leeds, UK: The Disability Press.
11. Bartky, S. L. (1990). Femininity and domination. New York: Routledge.
12. Barton, L. (Eds.). (1996). Disability and society: Emerging issues and insights. London: Longman.
13. Birke, L., Himmelweit, S., & Vines, G. (1992). Detecting genetic diseases: Prenatal screening and its problems. In G. Kirup & L. Smith Keller (Eds.), Inventing women: Science technology and gender. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press in association with Open University Press.
14. Bordo, S. (1993). Unbearable weight: Feminism, Western culture and the body. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
15. Bricher, G. (1999). A voice for people with disabilities in the prenatal screening debate. Nursing Inquiry, 6, 65-67.
16. Brouwer-DudokdeWit, A. C., Savenije, A., Maat-Kievet, A., & Tibben, A. (2002). A hereditary disorder in the family and the family life cycle: Huntington disease as a paradigm. Family Process, 41(4), 677-692.
17. Browner, C. H. (2001). Situating women's reproductive activities. American Anthropologist, 102(4), 773-788.
18. Browner, C. H., & Preloran, H. M. (2000a). Para Sacarse la Espina (To get rid of the doubt): Mexican immigrant women's amniocentesis decisions. In A. R. Saetnan, N. Oudshoorn, & M. Kirejczyk (Eds.), Bodies of technology: Women's involvement with reproductive medicine (pp. 368-383). Columbus, OH: Ohio State University.
19. Browner, C. H., & Preloran, H. M. (2000b). Latinas, amniocentesis and the discourse of choice. Culture, Medicine & Psychiatry, 24, 353-375.
20. Browner, C. H., & Preloran, H. M. (2000c). Interpreting low-income Latinas amniocentesis refusals. Hispanic Journal of Behavioural Sciences, 22(3), 346-368.
21. Browner, C. H., Preloran, H. M., & Cox, S. (1999). Ethnicity, bioethics and prenatal diagnosis: The amniocentesis decisions of Mexican-origin women and their partners. American Journal of Public Health, 89(11), 1658-1666.
22. Bunton, R., & Petersen, A. (2005). Genetics and governance: An introduction. In R. Bunton & A. Petersen (Eds.), Genetic governance: health, risk and ethics in a biotech era (pp. 1-27). London, Routledge.
23. Bush, J. (2000). Its just part of being a woman. Cervical screening, the body and femininity. Social Science and Medicine, 50, 429-444.
24. Carroll, J. C., Brown, J. B., Reid, A. J., & Pugh, P. (2000). Women's experience of maternal serum screening. Canadian Family Physician, 46, 614-620.
25. Chandler, M., & Smith, A. (1998). Prenatal screening and women's perception of infant disability: A Sophies Choice for every mother. Nursing Inquiry, 5, 71-76.
26. Chapman, E. (2002). Difficult decisions: Social and ethical implications of changing medical technology. Community Genetics, 5(2), 110-119.
27. Chappell, A. L. (1994). Disability, discrimination and the criminal justice system. Critical Social Policy, 14(3), 19-33.
28. Chard, T. (1996). Screening for Down's syndrome. Clinical Endocrinology, 44(15), 15.
29. Committee on Obstetric Practice. (1994). American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Committee opinion: Down syndrome screening. International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics, 47, 186-190.
30. Conrad, P. (1999). A mirage of genes. Sociology of Health and Illness, 21(2), 228-241.
31. Conrad, P., & Gabe, J. (Eds.). (1999). Sociological perspectives on the new genetics. Oxford: Blackwell.
32. Corker, M., & French, S. (1999). Disability discourse. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
33. Corker, M., & Shakespeare, T. (2002). Disability=postmodernity: Embodying disability theory. London: Continuum.
34. Cowan, R. S. (1994). Women's roles in the history of amniocentesis and chorionic villi sampling. In K. Rothenberg & E. J. Thomson (Eds.), Women and prenatal testing: Facing the challenges of genetic testing, Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press.
35. d'Agincourt-Canning, L., & Baird, P. (2006). Genetic testing for hereditary cancers: The impact of gender on interest, uptake and ethical considerations. Critical Reviews in Oncology=Hematology, 58, 114-123.
36. David, J., & Watson, N. (2002). Countering stereotypes of disability: Disabled children and resistance. In M. Corker & T. Shakespeare (Eds.), Disability=postmodernity: Embodying disability theory (pp. 159-174). London: Continuum.
37. Dragonas, T. (2001). Whose fault is it? Shame and guilt for the genetic defect. In E. Ettorre (Ed.), Before birth. London: Ashgate.
38. Drake, R. F. (1996). A critique of the role of traditional charities. In L. Barton (Ed.), Disability and society: Emerging issues and insights. Harlow, Essex, UK: Longman.
39. Durand, V. M. (2001). Future directions for children and adolescents with mental retardation. Behavior Therapy, 32, 633-650.
40. Duster, T. (2003) Backdoor to eugenics. London: Routledge.
41. Emery, J., Watson, E., Rose, P., & Andermann, A. (1999). A systematic review of the literature exploring the role of primary care in genetic services. Family Practice, 16(4), 426-445.
42. Ettorre, E. (1999). Experts as genetic story tellers: Exploring key issues. Sociology of Health and Illness, 21(5), 539-559.
43. Ettorre, E. (2000). Reproductive genetics, gender and the body: Please doctor, may I have a normal baby? Sociology, 34(3), 403-420.
44. Ettorre, E. (2002). Reproductive genetics, gender and the body. London: Routledge.
45. Ettorre, E. (2007). Prenatal screening: Impact on normal pregnancies. Encyclopedia of Life Sciences.
46. Ettorre, E., Steinberg, D. L., & Rothman, B. K. (2006). Feminism confronts the genome: Introduction. New Genetics and Society, 25(2), 133-142.
47. Exley, C., & Letherby, G. (2001). Managing a disrupted lifecourse: Issues of identity and emotion work. Health, 5(1), 112-132.
48. Farrant, W. (1985). Who's for amniocenteisis? In H. Homans (Ed.), The sexual politics of reproduction. Aldershot: Gower Publishing.
49. Featherstone, M. (1991). Consumer culture and postmodernism. London: Sage.
50. Finger, A. (1990). Past due: A story of disability, pregnancy and birth. London: The Women's Press.
51. Fletcher, R. (2006). Reproductive consumption. Feminist Theory, 7(1), 27-47.
52. Franklin, S., & McKinnon, S. (Eds.). (2001). Relative values: Reconfiguring kinship studies. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
53. Gillam, L. (1999). Prenatal diagnosis and discrimination against the disabled. Journal of Medical Ethics, 25, 163-171.
54. Gimenez, M. (1991). The mode of reproduction in transition: A Marxist-feminist analysis of the effects of reproductive technologies. Gender and Society, 5(3), 334-350.
55. Glasier, A., Gulmezoglu, A. M., Schmid, G. P., Moreno, C.G., & Van Look, P. F. A. (2006). Sexual and reproductive health: A matter of life and death. Lancet, 368, 1595-1607. (Pubitemid 44691893)
56. Green, J. M. (1990). Prenatal screening and diagnosis: Some psychological and social issues. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 97, 1074-1076.
57. Hales, G. (Ed.). (1996). Beyond disability. London: Sage.
58. Henn, W. (2000). Consumerism in prenatal diagnosis: A challenge for ethical guidelines. Journal of Medical Ethics, 26, 444-446.
59. Heyman, B., & Henriksen, M. (2001). Risk, age and pregnancy: A case study of prenatal genetic screening and testing. Basingstoke, Palgrave, UK: Macmillan.
60. Hindmarsh, R. (2005). Genetics engineering regulation in Australia: An archeaology of expertise and power. Science as Culture, 14(4), 373-392.
61. Ho, K. M., & Keiley, M. K. (2003). Dealing with denial: A systems approach for family professionalsworking with parents of individuals with multiple disabilities. Family Journal: Counselling and Therapy for Couples and Families, 11(3), 239-247.
62. Hockey, J., & James, A. (2003). Social identities across the life course. Basingstoke, Palgrave, UK: Macmillan.
63. Howson, A. (1998). Embodied obligation: the female body and health surveillance. In S. Nettleton & J. Watson (Eds.), The body in everyday life. London: Routledge.
64. Hughes, G. (1998). A suitable case for treatment? Constructions of disability. In E. Saraga (Ed.), Embodying the social: Constructions of difference. London: Routledge.
65. Hughes, A., & Witz, A. (1997). Feminism and the matter of bodies: From de Beauvoir to Butler. Body and Society, 3(1), 47-60.
66. James, A., & Hockey, J. (2007). Embodying healthy identities. Basingstoke, Palgrave, UK: Macmillan.
67. Jonsen, A. R. (1996). The impact of mapping the human genome on the patient-physician relationship. In T. Murray, M. A. Rothstein, & R. F. Murray (Eds.), The Human Genome Project and the future of health care. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
68. Kallianes, V., & Rubenfeld, P. (1997). Disabled women and reproductive rights. Disability & Society, 12(2), 203-220.
69. Keith, L., & Morris, J. (1995). Easy targets: A disability rights perspective on the children as carers. Critical Social Policy, 15(2=3), 36-57.
70. Kerr, A., & Cunningham-Burley, S. (2000). On ambivalence and risk: Reflexive modernity and the new human genetics. Sociology, 34(2), 283-304.
71. Kerr, A., Cunningham-Burley, S., & Amos, A. (1998). Eugenics and the new genetics in Britain: Examining contemporary professionals accounts. Science Technology and Human Values, 23, 175-198.
72. Kerr, A., & Franklin, S. (2006). Genetic ambivalence: Expertise, uncertainty and communication in the context of new genetic technologies. In A. Webster (Ed.), New technologies in health care: Challenge, change and innovation (pp. 40-56). Houndsmill, Basingstoke, Palgrave, UK: Macmillan.
73. Kotarski, B. R. (2000). Reexamining preventive health standards for women in a new century: Successful screening strategies of one community-based health center. Women's Health Issues, 10(6), 294-299.
74. Landsman, G. H. (1998). Reconstructing motherhood in the age of perfect babies: Mothers of infants and toddlers with disabilities. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 24(1), 69-98.
75. Lebner, A. (2000). Genetic "mysteries" and international adoption: the cultural impact of biomedical technologies on the adoptive family experience. Family Relations, 49, 371-377.
76. Le Breton, D. (2004). Genetic fundamentalism or the cult of the gene. Body and Society, 10(4), 1-20.
77. Lee, E. (2000). Young peoples attitudes to abortion and abnormality. Feminism & Psychology, 10(3), 396-399.
78. Lee, R., & Morgan, D. (1989). A lesser sacrifice? Sterilization and mentally handicapped. In R. Lee & D. Morgan (Eds.), Birthrights, law and ethics at the beginnings of life. New York and London: Routledge.
79. Lilford, R. J., Vanderkerckhove, P., & Thornton, J. G. (1994). Decision analysis in clinical genetics. Baillieres Clinical Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 8(3), 625-642.
80. Lippman, A. (1992). Led astray by genetic maps: The cartography of the human genome and health care. Social Science and Medicine, 35, 1469-1476.
81. Litton-Fox, G., Bruce, C., & Combs-Orme, T. (2000). Parenting expectations and concerns of fathers andmothers of newborn infants. Family Relations, 49(2), 123-131.
82. Markens, S., Browner, C. H., & Press, N. (1999). Because of the risks: How US women account for refusing prenatal screening. Social Science and Medicine, 49(3), 359-369.
83. Marteau, T., Shaw, R., & Slack, J. (1994). Routine prenatal testing for fetal abnormalities. London: Medical Research Council.
84. Morris, J. (1991). Pride against prejudice: Transforming attitudes to disability. London: The Women's Press.
85. Nelkin, D., & Lindee, M. S. (1995). The mediated gene: Stories of gender and race. In J. Terry & J. Urla (Eds.), Deviant bodies: Critical perspectives on difference in science and popular cultures. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
86. Nicholas, B. (2001). Exploring a moral landscape: Genetic science and ethics. Hypatia, 16(1), 45-63.
87. Oakley, A. (1984). The captured womb: A history of the medical care of pregnant woman. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.
88. Oliver, M. (1996). Understanding disability: From theory to practice. London: Macmillan.
89. Oliver, M., & Barnes, C. (1998). Disabled people and social policy: From exclusion to inclusion. London and New York: Longman.
90. Ormond, K. E., Gill, C. J., Semik, P., & Kirschner, K. L. (2003). Attitudes of health care trainees about genetics and disability: Issues of access, health care communication and decisions making. Journal of Genetic Counselling, 12(4), 333-349.
91. Overall, C. (1987). Ethics and human reproduction. Boston: Allen and Unwin.
92. Overboe, J. (1999). Difference in itself: Validating disabled peoples lived experiences. Body and Society, 5(4), 17-29.
93. Parker, M. (2000). Public deliberation and private choice in genetics and reproduction. Journal of Medical Ethics, 26, 160-165.
94. Parker, M., & Hope, T. (2000). Medical ethics in the 21st century. Journal of Internal Medicine, 248(1), 1-6.
95. Parsons, E., & Atkinson, P. (1993). Genetic risk and reproduction. Sociological Review, 41, 679-706.
96. Pinder, R. (1995). Bringing back the body without the blame? The experience of ill and disabled people at work. Sociology of Health and Illness, 17(5), 605-631.
97. Press, N., & Browner, C. H. (1997). Why women say yes to prenatal diagnosis. Social Science and Medicine, 45(7), 979-989.
98. Press, N., & Browner, C. H. (1998). Characteristics of women who refuse an offer of prenatal diagnosis: Data from the California Maternal Serum Alpha Fetoprotein Blood Test Experience. American Journal of Medical Genetics, 78, 433-445.
99. Press, N., Browner, C. H., Tran, D., Morton, C., & LeMaster, B. (1998). Provisional normalcy and "perfect babies": Pregnant women's attitudes towards disability in the context of prenatal testing. In S. Franklin & H. Ragone (Eds.), Reproducing reproduction: Kinship, power & technological innovation (pp. 46-65). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
100. Qureshi, N., & Raeburn, J. A. (1993). Clinical genetics meets primary care. British Medical Journal, 307, 816-817.
101. Qureshi, N., Armstrong, S., & Modell, B. (2005). GPs opinions of their role in prenatal genetic services: A cross-sectional survey. Family Practice, 23, 106-110.
102. Rapp, R. (1999). Testing women, testing the fetus: The social impact of amniocentesis. New York and London: Routledge.
103. Rapp, R., Heath, D., & Taussig, K. S. (2001). Genealogical disease: Where hereditary abnormality, biomedical explanation, and family responsibility meet. In S. Franklin & S. McKinnon (Eds.), Relative values: Reconfiguring kinship studies (pp. 384-409). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
104. Reid, M. (1991). The diffusion of four prenatal screening tests across Europe. London: Kings Fund Centre for Health Services Development.
105. Reynolds, T. M. (2003). Down's syndrome screening is unethical: Views of today's research ethics committees. Journal of Clinical Pathology, 56, 268-270.
106. Richards, M. (1997). It runs in the family: Lay knowledge about inheritance. In A. Clarke & E. Parsons (Eds.), Culture, kinship and genes: Towards cross-cultural genetics. Houndsmills, UK: Macmillan.
107. Richards, M. P. M. (1993). The new genetics: Some issues for social scientists. Sociology of Health and Illness, 15(5), 567-586.
108. Rolland, J. S. (2006). Genetics, family systems and multicultural influences. Families, Systems & Health, 24(4), 425-441.
109. Rolland, J. S., & Williams, J. (2005). Toward a biopsychosocial model for the 21st century. Family Process, 44(1), 3-24.
110. Root, R., & Browner, C. H. (2001). Practices of the pregnant self: Compliance with and resistance to prenatal norms. Culture, Medicine & Psychiatry, 25, 195-223.
111. Rothenberg, K., & Thomson, E. J. (1994). Women and prenatal testing. In K. Rothenberg & E. J. Thomson (Eds.), Women and prenatal testing: Facing the challenges of genetic testing. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press.
112. Rothman, B. K. (1998a). Genetic maps and human imaginations. New York: W. W. Norton.
113. Rothman, B. K. (1998b). A sociological skeptic in the brave new world. Gender and Society, 12, 501-504.
114. Rothman, B. K. (1994). The tentative pregnancy: Amniocentesis and the sexual politics of motherhood. London: Pandora.
115. Ruhl, P. L. (2002). Disarticulating liberal subjectivities: Abortion and fetal protection. Feminist Studies, 28(1), 37-60.
116. Saharso, S. (2003). Feminist ethics: Autonomy and the politics of multiculturalism. Feminist Theory, 4(2), 199-215.
117. Scully, J. L. (2002). A postmodern disorder: Moral encounters with molecular models of disability. In M. Corker & T. Shakespeare (Eds.), Disability=postmodernity: Embodying disability theory (pp. 48-61). London: Continuum.
118. Shakespeare, T. (1998). Choices and rights: Eugenics, genetics and disability equality. Disability & Society, 13(5), 665-681.
119. Shakespeare, T. (1995). Back to the future? New genetics and disabled people. Critical Social Policy, 15, 22-35.
120. Shildrick, M. (1997). Leaky bodies and boundaries: Feminism, postmodernism and (bio)ethics. London and New York: Routledge.
121. Shildrick, M. (2004). Genetics, normativity and ethics: Some bioethical concerns. Feminist Theory, 5(2), 149-165.
122. Shore, C. (1992). Virgin births and sterile debates. Current Anthropology, 33(3), 295-314.
123. Strathern, M. (1997). The work of culture: An anthropological perspective. In A. Clarke & E. Parsons (Eds.), Culture, kinship and genes. Houndsmill, UK: Macmillan.
124. Strathern, M. (1999). Postscript: A relational view. In J. Edwards, S. Franklin, E. Hirsch, F. Price, & M. Strathern (Eds.), Technologies of procreation: Kinship in the age of assisted reproduction (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
125. Strobino, D. M., Grason, H., & Minkovitz, C. (2002). Charting a course for the future of women's health in the United States: Concepts, findings and recommendations. Social Science & Medicine, 54, 839-848.
126. Thomas, C. (1997). The baby and the bath water: Disabled women and motherhood in a social context. Sociology of Health and Illness, 19(5), 622-643.
127. Wendell, S. (1992). Toward a feminist theory of disability. In H. B. Holmes & L. Purdy (Eds.), Feminist perspectives in medical ethics. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
128. Wendell, S. (1996). The rejected body: Feminist philosophical reflections on disability. New York: Routledge.
129. Wertz, D. C., & Fletcher, J. C. (1993). Prenatal diagnosis and sex selection in 19 nations. Social Science and Medicine, 37(11), 1359-1366.
130. Wetherall, D. J. (1991). The new genetics and clinical practice. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
131. Wetherell, M. (1997). Social structure, ideology and family dynamics: The case of parenting. In J. Muncie, M. Wetherell, M. Langan, R. Dallos, & A. Cochrane (Eds.), Understanding the family (2nd ed., pp. 214-256). London: Sage.
132. Williams, S. (1998). Capitalising on emotions? Rethinking the inequalities in Health Debate. Sociology, 32, 121-139. (Pubitemid 128373487)