Literature DB >> 19891618

Interrogating the dynamics between power, knowledge and pregnant bodies in amniocentesis decision making.

Susan Markens1, Carole H Browner, H Mabel Preloran.   

Abstract

A common assumption is that women who decline prenatal testing distrust biomedicine and trust embodied/experiential knowledge sources, while women who accept testing trust biomedicine and distrust embodied/experiential sources. Another major assumption about prenatal testing utilisation is that women who are open to abortion will undergo prenatal testing while those who are opposed to abortion will decline testing. Yet, previous research has produced inconsistent findings as to what, if anything, distinguishes women who accept or decline the offer of prenatal diagnosis. Analysing interviews with 147 pregnant women, this paper questions these assumptions about the role of abortion views and pregnant women's relative trust in various knowledge sources on their decisions to accept or decline an amniocentesis offer after a positive result on an initial diagnostic screening. We found that pregnant women's attitudes toward different knowledge sources were equally, if not more, important factors than abortion views in affecting whether individual women accepted or declined amniocentesis. At the same time, our data reveal that the relationship between 'expert' and 'lay' knowledge sources is often complex and synergistic.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19891618     DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9566.2009.01197.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Sociol Health Illn        ISSN: 0141-9889


  14 in total

1.  Treatment of an Ectopic Pregnancy: An Ethical Reanalysis.

Authors:  Maureen L Condic; Donna Harrison
Journal:  Linacre Q       Date:  2018-06-18

2.  Human genome editing and the identity politics of genetic disability.

Authors:  Felicity Boardman
Journal:  J Community Genet       Date:  2019-09-06

3.  Negotiating desires and options: how mothers who carry the fragile X gene experience reproductive decisions.

Authors:  Kelly Amanda Raspberry; Debra Skinner
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  2011-02-03       Impact factor: 4.634

4.  Spanish- and English-Speaking Pregnant Women's Views on cfDNA and Other Prenatal Screening: Practical and Ethical Reflections.

Authors:  Erin Floyd; Megan A Allyse; Marsha Michie
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2016-01-07       Impact factor: 2.537

5.  Is preparation a good reason for prenatal genetic testing? Ethical and critical questions.

Authors:  Marsha Michie
Journal:  Birth Defects Res       Date:  2020-03-01       Impact factor: 2.344

6.  "He Beat You in the Blood": Knowledge and Beliefs About the Transmission of Traits Among Latinos from Mexico and Central America.

Authors:  Joanne C Sandberg; Guadalupe Rodriguez; Timothy D Howard; Sara A Quandt; Thomas A Arcury
Journal:  J Immigr Minor Health       Date:  2017-02

7.  Informed consent and fresh egg donation for stem cell research.

Authors:  Katherine Carroll; Catherine Waldby
Journal:  J Bioeth Inq       Date:  2011-12-23       Impact factor: 1.352

8.  Coping with worry while waiting for diagnostic results: a qualitative study of the experiences of pregnant couples following a high-risk prenatal screening result.

Authors:  Stina Lou; Camilla P Nielsen; Lone Hvidman; Olav B Petersen; Mette B Risør
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2016-10-21       Impact factor: 3.007

9.  Experiences and expectations in the first trimester of pregnancy: a qualitative study.

Authors:  Stina Lou; Michal Frumer; Mette M Schlütter; Olav B Petersen; Ida Vogel; Camilla P Nielsen
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2017-05-18       Impact factor: 3.377

10.  Fear, Risk, and the Responsible Choice: Risk Narratives and Lowering the Rate of Caesarean Sections in High-income Countries.

Authors:  Helga Hallgrimsdottir; Leah Shumka; Catherine Althaus; Cecilia Benoit
Journal:  AIMS Public Health       Date:  2017-12-26
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.