Abstract
This chapter explores the role of two different but complementary reproductive interventions: prenatal and preimplantation diagnosis. Feminist scholarship examining prenatal screening and diagnosis began in earnest in the 1960s and gained momentum in subsequent years. Utilizing bioethical concepts of patient autonomy and informed consent within flexible definitions of risk, this chapter reflects on some of the historical feminist concerns regarding prenatal diagnosis, and offers insights on the ways in which disease is currently defined, identified, and treated. Against a backdrop of bioethical understanding and feminist perspectives on prenatal diagnosis, this chapter explores how one of the newest technologies, preimplantation diagnosis (PGD), may force its designers, users, and communities to (re)think how one should reproduce and make babies. By offering insights into the role of PGD in passing genetic deafness from one generation to the next, and in family balancing, the chapter concludes with a vision of a future in which more regulation of reproductive technologies will be needed despite shifting definitions of normalcy and acceptability.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
For example over the counter pregnancy tests promise a correct response very soon after a missed menstrual period.
- 2.
For example, if the medical care provider follows the rule of beneficence it would be difficult to knowingly propagate genetic traits known to cause pain, suffering, and early death.
- 3.
Objectivity has been critiqued through a number of methods. Although here, I highlight Strong Objectivity, other forms include weak objectivity or standpoint theory, and interest-based objectivity.
- 4.
Because CVS can be performed earlier in gestation than can amniocentesis, it is an important indicator of technology development and the desire to continuously know more about a pregnancy earlier in gestation.
- 5.
For example, an image of a free-floating fetus is seen at the end of the 1968 film 2001 A Space Odyssey. Stanley Kubrick’s work brought the idea of the public fetus into theaters and the minds of moviegoers, who while being entertained were also faced with a new way to see the unborn.
- 6.
For excellent statistics on deaf and hard of hearing individuals in the USA see the National Technical Institute for the Deaf Collaboratory and the American Community Survey from the US Census Bureau.
- 7.
For detailed explanation of the social construction of Deafness as medicalized disease and the desire of Deaf parents to create Deaf children see the case of Duchesneau and McCullough in Regulating Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis (2005).
References
Alper J, Ard C, Asch A, Beckwith J. The double-edged helix: social implications of genetics in a Diverse Society. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press; 2004.
Annas GJ, Grodin MA. The Nazi doctors and the Nuremberg Code: human rights in human experimentation. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1995.
Arney WR. Power and the profession of obstetrics. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press; 1982.
Blizzard D. A trying experience: fetoscopy and maternal decision making. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2005;48(3):562–73.
Blizzard D. Looking within: a sociocultural examination of fetoscopy. Cambridge: MIT Press; 2007.
Caplan, AL. If I were a rich man could i buy a pancreas? And other essays on the ethics of health care (medical ethics). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press; 1992.
Casper M. The making of the unborn patient: a social anatomy of fetal surgery. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press; 1998.
Crasnow S, Waugh J. Philosophical feminism and popular culture.
Davis J. Selecting potential children and unconditional parental love. Bioethics. 2008;22(5):258–68.
Ettorre E, Rothman BK, Steinberg DL. Feminism confronts the genome: introduction. New Genet Soc. 2006;25(2):133–42.
Fahmy MS. On the supposed moral harm of selecting for deafness. Bioethics. 2011;25(3):128–36.
Fausto-Sterling A. Sex/gender: biology in a social world. London: Routledge; 2012.
Feyerabend P. Against method. New York, NY: Verso; 2010.
Foster S. Social alienation and peer identification: a study of the social construction of deafness. Hum Organ. 1989;8(3):226–35.
Gender Diparity still wide; India ranks 114th globally. 2010 February 26.
Harding S. Whose science? Whose knowledge?: thinking from women's lives. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press; 1991.
Harding S. “Strong objectivity”: a response to the new objectivity question. Sythese. 1995;104(3):331–49.
Harding S. The feminist standpoint theory reader: intellectual and political controversies. London: Routledge; 2003.
IMDb Gattaca Quotes. [Online]. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119177/quotes.
Jones JH. Bad blood: the Tuskegee syphilis experiment. revisedth ed. New York, NY: Free Press; 1992.
Kimmel M. The gendered society. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2012.
Malek J. Use of refuse reproductive genetic technologies: which would a ‘good parent’ do? Bioethics. 2011;27(2):59–64.
Mattingly SS. The maternal-fetal dyad: exploring the two patient obstetric model. The Hastings Center Report. 1992 Jan–Feb; p. 13–18.
McGee G. The perfect baby : parenthood in the new world of cloning and genetics. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.; 2000.
McGowan MR, Sharp RR. Justice in the context of family balancing. Sci Technol Hum Val. 2012;38(2):271–93.
Munson R. Intervention and reflection: basic issues in bioethics. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning US; 2011.
National Technical Institute for the Deaf. Collaboratory: D/HH Population – 2011. [Online]. http://www.ntid.rit.edu/research/collaboratory/demographics/deaf_hh_population.
Pence GE. Re-creating medicine: ethical issues at the frontiers of medicine. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.; 2000.
Petchesky R. Foetal images: the power of visual culture in the politics of reproduction. In: Stansworth M, editor. Reproductive technologies: gender, motherhood, and medicine. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press; 1987. p. 57–80.
Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis: The Pathologization Problem. Harvard Law Review. 2005;118(8):2770–2791
Quintero RA. Diagnostic and operative fetoscopy. New York, NY: The Parthenon Group; 2002.
Rapp R. Testing women, testing the fetus: the social impact of amniocentesis in America (the anthropology of everyday life). London: Routledge; 2000.
Restivo S. Science, society, and values : toward a sociology of objectivity. Bethlehem: Lehigh University Press; 1994.
Sauer M. Gender selection: pressure from patients and industry should not alter our adherence to ethical guidelines. Am College Obstet J. 2004;191(5):373–5.
Taylor J. The public fetus and the family car: from abortion politics to a Volvo advertisement. Sci Cult. 1993;3(4):601–18.
The National Commission. The Belmont report: ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research. Bethesda, MD: The National Commission; 1978.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Blizzard, D. (2015). Feminist Perspectives on Prenatal and Preimplantation Diagnosis. In: Paley Galst, J., Verp, M. (eds) Prenatal and Preimplantation Diagnosis. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-18911-6_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-18911-6_12
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-18910-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-18911-6
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)