Literature DB >> 25837233

Moral implications of obstetric technologies for pregnancy and motherhood.

Susanne Brauer1.   

Abstract

Drawing on sociological and anthropological studies, the aim of this article is to reconstruct how obstetric technologies contribute to a moral conception of pregnancy and motherhood, and to evaluate that conception from a normative point of view. Obstetrics and midwifery, so the assumption, are value-laden, value-producing and value-reproducing practices, values that shape the social perception of what it means to be a "good" pregnant woman and to be a "good" (future) mother. Activities in the medical field of reproduction contribute to "kinning", that is the making of particular social relationships marked by closeness and special moral obligations. Three technologies, which belong to standard procedures in prenatal care in postmodern societies, are presently investigated: (1) informed consent in prenatal care, (2) obstetric sonogram, and (3) birth plan. Their widespread application is supposed to serve the moral (and legal) goal of effecting patient autonomy (and patient right). A reconstruction of the actual moral implications of these technologies, however, reveals that this goal is missed in multiple ways. Informed consent situations are marked by involuntariness and blindness to social dimensions of decision-making; obstetric sonograms construct moral subjectivity and agency in a way that attribute inconsistent and unreasonable moral responsibilities to the pregnant woman; and birth plans obscure the need for a healthcare environment that reflects a shared-decision-making model, rather than a rational-choice-framework.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Autonomy; Birth; Motherhood; Pregnancy; Prenatal care; Sonogram

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 25837233     DOI: 10.1007/s11019-015-9635-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Health Care Philos        ISSN: 1386-7423


  26 in total

1.  Refusing prenatal diagnosis: the meanings of bioscience in a multicultural world.

Authors:  Rayna Rapp
Journal:  Sci Technol Human Values       Date:  1998

2.  Enhancement is good for you!: understanding the ethics of genetic enhancement.

Authors:  J Harris; S Chan
Journal:  Gene Ther       Date:  2008-01-24       Impact factor: 5.250

Review 3.  Postnatal reproductive autonomy: promoting relational autonomy and self-trust in new parents.

Authors:  Sara Goering
Journal:  Bioethics       Date:  2009-01       Impact factor: 1.898

4.  Reconsidering prenatal screening: an empirical-ethical approach to understand moral dilemmas as a question of personal preferences.

Authors:  E García; D R M Timmermans; E van Leeuwen
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  2009-07       Impact factor: 2.903

5.  Mode of delivery: toward responsible inclusion of patient preferences.

Authors:  Margaret Olivia Little; Anne Drapkin Lyerly; Lisa M Mitchell; Elizabeth M Armstrong; Lisa H Harris; Rebecca Kukla; Miriam Kuppermann
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2008-10       Impact factor: 7.661

6.  Choice and birth method: mixed-method study of caesarean delivery for maternal request.

Authors:  C Kingdon; J Neilson; V Singleton; G Gyte; A Hart; M Gabbay; T Lavender
Journal:  BJOG       Date:  2009-04-22       Impact factor: 6.531

7.  The ethics of cesarean section on maternal request: a feminist critique of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists' position on patient-choice surgery.

Authors:  Veronique Bergeron
Journal:  Bioethics       Date:  2007-11       Impact factor: 1.898

8.  Selecting potential children and unconditional parental love.

Authors:  John Davis
Journal:  Bioethics       Date:  2008-06       Impact factor: 1.898

9.  The kin of the gene: the medicalization of family and kinship in American Society.

Authors:  K Finkler
Journal:  Curr Anthropol       Date:  2001-04

10.  Cesarean delivery on maternal request: can the ethical problem be solved by the principlist approach?

Authors:  Tore Nilstun; Marwan Habiba; Göran Lingman; Rodolfo Saracci; Monica Da Frè; Marina Cuttini
Journal:  BMC Med Ethics       Date:  2008-06-17       Impact factor: 2.652

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.