Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

PMDs and the Moral Specialness of Medicine: An Analysis of the ‘Keepsake Ultrasound’

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Quantified Lives and Vital Data

Part of the book series: Health, Technology and Society ((HTE))

  • 510 Accesses

Abstract

PMDs raise questions about the relationship between morality and medicine, threatening the conceptual discreteness of medicine itself. Everyday items such as phones or watches are increasingly used for quasi-medical purposes. Conversely, products designed for medical use are entering marketplaces and being used in ways that serve users’ values and interests without mapping neatly onto established paradigms of medical need and authority. One example of this is the so-called keepsake ultrasound . When sought outside routine medical care, our lack of ability to monitor and regulate these scans raises ethical challenges. Devices or procedures such as keepsake ultrasounds, which can have both medical and non-medical applications and which can be used by both medical professionals and members of the public, thus raise new questions for regulatory authorities.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • American Pregnancy Association. (2016). Ultrasound: Sonogram. Available at http://americanpregnancy.org/prenatal-testing/ultrasound. Accessed May 12, 2016.

  • Antiel, R. (2012). Ethical challenges in the new world of maternal–fetal surgery. Seminars in Perinatology, 40(4), 227–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beauchamp, T., & Childress, J. (2009). Principles of biomedical ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bessell, T., Andreson, J., Silagy, C., Sansom, L., & Hiller, J. (2003). Surfing, self-medicating and safety: Buying non-prescription and complementary medicines via the internet. Quality and Safety in Health Care, 12(2), 88–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chervenak, F., & McCullough, L. (2011). Ethics in obstetric ultrasound: The past 25 years in perspective. Donald School Journal of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology, 5(2), 79–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Childress, J., & Siegler, M. (1984). Metaphors and models of doctor-patient relationships: Their implications for autonomy. Theoretical Medicine, 5(1), 17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clouser, K., Danner, P., & Gert, B. (1990). A critique of principlism. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 15(2), 219–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Darby, R. (2013). The child’s right to an open future: Is the principle applicable to non-therapeutic circumcision? Journal of Medical Ethics, 39(7), 463–468.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dieterich, M., Stubert, J., Stachs, A., Radke, A., Reimer, T., & Gerber, B. (2013). Ruptured poly-implant protheses breast implant after aesthetic breast augmentation: Diagnosis, case management, and histologic evaluation. Aesthetic Plastic Surgery, 37(1), 91–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Earp, B. (2015). Do the benefits of male circumcision outweigh the risks? A critique of the proposed CDC guidelines. Frontiers in Pediatrics, 3(18). doi: 10.3389/fped.2015.00018.

  • Gillon, R. (2003). Ethics needs principles—Four can encompass the rest—And respect for autonomy should be “first among equals”. Journal of Medical Ethics, 29(5), 307–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greaves, D. (1979). What is medicine?: Towards a philosophical approach. Journal of Medical Ethics, 5, 29–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halperin, D., Kohno, T., Heydt-Benjamin, T., Fu, K., & Maisel, W. (2008). Security and privacy for implantable medical devices. Pervasive Computing, IEEE, 7(1), 30–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harris, J. (2004). Before birth–after death. Journal of Medical Ethics, 30(5), 425.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Häyry, M. (2004). There is a difference between selecting a deaf embryo and deafening a hearing child. Journal of Medical Ethics, 30(5), 510–512.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jonsen, A. (2000). A short history of medical ethics. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirmayer, L. (2004). The cultural diversity of healing: Meaning, metaphor and mechanism. British Medical Bulletin, 69(1), 33–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kohut, R., Dewey, D., & Love, E. (2002). Women’s knowledge of prenatal ultrasound and informed choice. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 11(4), 265–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leung, J., & Pang, S. (2009). Ethical analysis of non-medical fetal ultrasound. Nursing Ethics, 16(5), 637–646.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lloyd, P., Lupton, D., & Donaldson, C. (1991). Consumerism in the health care setting: An exploratory study of factors underlying the selection and evaluation of primary medical services. Australian Journal of Public Health, 15(3), 194–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Health Service. (2015). Ultrasound scan. Available online at: http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/Ultrasound-scan/Pages/Introduction.aspx. Accessed January 13, 2016.

  • O’Dowd, A. (2012). Women have had “harrowing” experiences over PIP implants scandal. British Medical Journal, 345, e4560.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Overall, C. (2013). Ethics and human reproduction: A feminist analysis. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Palmer, J. (2009). The placental body in 4D: Everyday practices of non-diagnostic sonography. Feminist Review, 93(1), 64–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parker, M., & Gray, M. (2001). What is the role of clinical ethics support in the era of e-medicine? Journal of Medical Ethics, 27(suppl1), i33–i35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pellegrino, E. (1999). The commodification of medical and health care: The moral consequences of a paradigm shift from a professional to a market ethic. Journal of Medical Philosophy, 24(3), 243–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pickstone, J. (2000). Production, community and consumption: The political economy of twentieth-century medicine. In R. Cooter & J. Pickstone (Eds.), Medicine in the 20th century (pp. 1–21). Australia: Harwood Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, R. (1989). Health for sale: Quackery in England, 1660–1850. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, R. (2003). Quacks: Fakers & charlatans in medicine. Stroud: Tempus.

    Google Scholar 

  • Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. (2013). Definitions of sterility and recurrent pregnancy loss: A committee opinion. Fertility and Sterility, 99(1), 63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Public Health England. (2010). Response to Agnir Report. Available online at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/ultrasound-and-infrasound-hpa-response-to-agnir-report-rce-14/ultrasound-and-infrasound-hpa-response-to-agnir-report-rce-14. Accessed August 08, 2016.

  • Roberts, J., Griffiths, F., Verran, A., & Ayre, C. (2015). Why do women seek ultrasound scans from commercial providers during pregnancy? Sociology of Health & Illness, 37(4), 594–609.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salter, B., Zhou, Y., & Datta, S. (2015). Hegemony in the marketplace of biomedical innovation: Consumer demand and stem cell science. Social Science and Medicine, 131, 156–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shildrick, M. (2015). Leaky bodies and boundaries: Feminism, postmodernism and (Bio) ethics. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smajdor, A., Sydes, M. R., Gelling, L., & Wilkinson, M. (2009). Applying for ethical approval for research in the United Kingdom. British Medical Journal. 16. 339.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smajdor, A., Stöckl, A., & Salter, C. (2011). The limits of empathy: Problems in medical education and practice. Journal of Medical Ethics, 37, 380–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spiro, H., McCrea Curnen, M., Peschel, E., & St James, D. (Eds.). (1993). Empathy and the Practice of Medicine. Beyond pills and the scalpel. New Haven and London: Yale University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stephenson, N., McLeod, K., & Mills, C. (2016). Ambiguous encounters, uncertain foetuses: Women’s experiences of obstetric ultrasound. Feminist Review, 113(1), 17–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stöckl, A. (2013). The expert patient and usage of the Internet. In P. Cavanagh, S. Leinster, & S. Miles (Eds.), The changing roles of doctors (pp. 69–79). New York: Radcliffe Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tomasini, F. (2006). Exploring ethical justification for self-demand amputation. Ethics & Medicine, 22(2), 99–115.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner, B. (2010). Vulnerability and human rights. University Park, Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania State University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2015). Avoid fetal “Keepsake” images, heartbeat monitors. Washington: FDA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weindling, P. (2004). Nazi medicine and the Nuremberg trials: From medical war trials to informed consent. Basingstoke, Hampshire/New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Window to the Womb. (2016). Available online at http://windowtothewomb.co.uk/. Accessed May 13, 2016.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Philosophy, Classics, History of Art and Ideas, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway

    Anna Smajdor

  2. Norwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK

    Andrea Stöckl

Authors
  1. Anna Smajdor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Andrea Stöckl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anna Smajdor .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom

    Rebecca Lynch

  2. School of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom

    Conor Farrington

Copyright information

© 2018 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Smajdor, A., Stöckl, A. (2018). PMDs and the Moral Specialness of Medicine: An Analysis of the ‘Keepsake Ultrasound’. In: Lynch, R., Farrington, C. (eds) Quantified Lives and Vital Data. Health, Technology and Society. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-349-95235-9_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-349-95235-9_7

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-349-95234-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-349-95235-9

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation