Knowledge is power? : the role of experiential knowledge in genetically 'risky' reproductive decisions
Boardman, Felicity K. (2012) Knowledge is power? : the role of experiential knowledge in genetically 'risky' reproductive decisions. Sociology of Health & Illness . ISSN 1467-9566 (Submitted)
WRAP_Boardman_0970314-mg-291112-knowledge_is_power__revised_with_tables.pdf - Submitted Version
Download (415Kb) | Preview
Official URL: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/(IS...
Knowledge of the condition being tested for is increasingly acknowledged as an important factor in prenatal testing and screening decisions. An analysis of the way in which family members living with an inheritable condition use and value this knowledge has much to add to debates around whether and how this type of knowledge could be made available to prospective parents facing screening decisions. This paper reports on in-depth interviews with sixty-one people (conducted 2007-9), with a genetic condition in their family, Spinal Muscular Atrophy (SMA). Many participants described their intimate familial knowledge of SMA as offering them valuable insights with which they could imagine future lives. Other participants, however, found themselves trapped between their experiential knowledge of SMA and their (often) competing responsibility to maintain the wellbeing of their family. Still others established a ‘hierarchy’ of knowledge to rank the authenticity of different family member’s accounts of SMA in order to discredit, or justify, their decisions. This paper highlights the way in which experiential knowledge of the condition being tested for cannot be unproblematically assumed to be a useful resource in the context of prenatal testing and screening decisions, and may actually constrain reproductive decisions.
|Item Type:||Submitted Journal Article|
|Subjects:||R Medicine > RG Gynecology and obstetrics|
|Divisions:||Faculty of Medicine > Warwick Medical School > Health Sciences
Other > Learning and Development Centre
|Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH):||Genetic screening -- Psychological aspects, Genetic disorders -- Psychological aspects, Spinal muscular atrophy -- Psychological aspects|
|Journal or Publication Title:||Sociology of Health & Illness|
|Access rights to Published version:||Restricted or Subscription Access|
|Funder:||Foundation for the Sociology of Health and Illness|
|References:||Abel, K. and Browner, C. (1998) Selective Compliance with Biomedical Authority and the Uses of Experiential Knowledge. In Lock, M. and Kaufert, P. (eds) Pragmatic Women and Body Politics. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge. Ahmed, S., Bryant, L. & Hewison, J. (2007) ‘Balance’ is in the Eye of the Beholder: Providing Information to Support Informed Choices in Antenatal Screening via Antenatal Screening Web Resource, Health Expectations, 4, 309-320. Asch, A. (1999) Prenatal Diagnosis and Selective Abortion: A Challenge to Practice and Policy, American Journal of Public Health, 89, 11, 1649-1657. Atkinson, R. (2008) My Baby, Right or Wrong in The Guardian 10 March 2008. http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2008/mar/10/familyandrelationships.disability?INTCMP=SRCH accessed 10 April 2012. Beeson, D. and Globus, M. (1985) Decision Making: Whether or not to have Prenatal Diagnosis and Abortion for X Linked Conditions, American Journal of Medical Genetics, 20, 107-114. Boardman, F. (2011) Negotiating Discourses of Maternal Responsibility, Disability and Reprogenetics in Lewiecki-Wilson, C. and Cellio, J. (eds) Disability and Mothering: Liminal Spaces of Embodied Knowledge Syracuse University Press. Boardman, F. (2010) The Role of Experiential Knowledge in the Reproductive Decision Making of Families Genetically at Risk: The Case of Spinal Muscular Atrophy Unpublished Thesis: University of Warwick. Borkman, T. (1979) Experiential Knowledge: A New Concept for the Analysis of Self-Help Groups, Social Service Review, 50, 3, 445-456. Bowler, E. (2006) How Will I Cope with a ‘Normal’ Baby? The Guardian11 December 2006. http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,1969035,00.html accessed 10 April 2012. Bricher, G. (1999) A Voice for People with Disabilities in the Prenatal Screening Debate, Nursing Inquiry, 6, 1, 65-7. Brown, L. and Boardman, F. (2011) Accessing the Field: Disability and the Research Process. Social Science & Medicine 72 (1) pp. 23-30. Bryant, L., Hewison, J. and Green, J. (2005) Attitudes Towards Prenatal Diagnosis and Termination in Women Who Have a Sibling with Down’s Syndrome, Reproductive and Infant Psychology, 23, 2, 181-198. Burns, E. (2010). Developing Email Interview Practices, Sociological Research Online, 15, 4, 8. Caron-Finterman, J., Broerse, J. and Bunders, J. (2005). The Experiential Knowledge of Patients: A New Resource for Biomedical Research? Social Science and Medicine, 60, 11, 2575-2584. Chaplin, J., Schweitzer, R. and Perkouldis, S. (2005) Experiences of Prenatal Diagnosis of Spina Bifida or Hydrocephalus in Parents who Decide to Continue with Their Pregnancies, Journal of Genetic Counseling, 14, 151-162. Chen, E. and Shiffman, J. (2000) Attitudes Toward Genetic Counseling and Prenatal Diagnosis Among a Group of Individuals with Disabilities, Journal of Genetic Counseling, 9, 2, 137-152. Cox, S. (2003) Stories in Decisions: How At-Risk Individuals Decide to Request Predictive Testing for Huntingdon Disease, Qualitative Sociology, 26, 2, 257-278. D’Amico, R., Jacopini, G., Vivona, G. and Frontali, M. (1992).Reproductive choices in couples at risk for genetic disease: a qualitative and quantitative analysis, Birth Defects: Original Article Series, 28, 1, 41–6. D’Agincourt-Canning, L. (2005) The Effect of Experiential Knowledge on Construction of Risk Perception in Hereditary Breast/Ovarian Cancer, Journal of Genetic Counselling, 14, 55-69. D’Agincourt-Canning, L. (2003) Experiential Knowledge, Moral Agency and Genetic Testing for Hereditary Breast/Ovarian Cancer, Doctoral Thesis: University of British Columbia. Downing, C. (2005). Negotiating Responsibility: Case Studies of Reproductive Decision-Making and Prenatal Genetic Testing in Families Facing Huntingdon Disease, Journal of Genetic Counseling, 14, 3, 219-234. Dreesen, J., Bras, M., de Die-Smulders, C., Dumoulin, J., Cobben, J., Evers, J., Smeets, H. and Geraedts, J. (1998). Pre-implantation Genetic Diagnosis of Spinal Muscular Atrophy, Molecular Human Reproduction, 4, 9, 881-885. Dubowitz, V. (2008) Ramblings in the History of Spinal Muscular Atrophy, Neuromuscular Disorders, 19, 1, 69-73. Dubowitz, V. (1991) Editorial: Chaos in the classification of the spinal muscular atrophies of childhood, Neuromuscular Disorders, 1, 2, 77-80. Edwards, S. (2004) Disability, Identity and the ‘Expressivist Objection’ Journal of Medical Ethics, 30, 418-420. Etchegary, H., Potter, B., Howley, H. Cappelli, M. Coyle, D., Graham, I., Walker, M. and Wilson, B. (2008) The Influence of Experiential Knowledge on Prenatal Screening and Testing Decisions, Genetic Testing, 12, 1, 115-124. Evers-Kiebooms, G., Denayer, L, Cassiman, J. and Van Den Berghe, H. (1988)Family Planning Decisions After the Birth of a Cystic Fibrosis Child: The Impact of Prenatal Diagnosis, Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology, 23, 143, 38-46. France, E., Locock, L., Hunt, K., Ziebland, S., Field, K. and Wyke, S. (2011) Imagined Futures: How Experiential Knowledge of Disability Affects Parents’ Decision Making about Fetal Abnormality, Health Expectations doi: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2011.00672.x. Fletcher, A. (2002) Making it Better? Disability and Genetic Choice. In Lee, E. (ed) Designer Babies: Where Do we Draw the Line? London: Hodder and Stoughton. Gibbs, G. (2007) Analyzing Qualitative Data, London: Sage Publications Ltd. Glaser, B. and Strauss, A. (1967) The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research, New York: Walter De Gruyter Inc. Gow, J. (2000) A Study Examining the Views About Reproductive Screening Programmes of Young Women With Down’s Syndrome, Spina Bifida and Cystic Fibrosis, Unpublished Thesis: University of Glasgow. Hallowell, N. (2006) Varieties of Suffering: Living with the Risk of Ovarian Cancer, Health, Risk and Society, 8, 1, 9-26. Human Genetics Commission. (2011) Increasing Options, Informing Choice, http://www.hgc.gov.uk/Client/document.asp?DocId=315&CAtegoryId=10 (Accessed 15 March 2012). Jennifer Trust for Spinal Muscular Atrophy. (2011) http://www.jtsma.org.uk/ (Accessed 3 March 2012). Kaplan, D. (1999). Prenatal Screening and its Impact on Persons with Disabilities. In Kuhse, H. and Singer, P. (eds) Bioethics: An Anthology, Oxford: Blackwell. Kay, E. and Kingston, H. (2002) Feelings Associated with Being a Carrier and Characteristics of Reproductive Decision Making in Women Known to be Carriers of X Linked Conditions, Journal of Health Psychology, 7, 2, 169-181. Kelly, S. (2009). Choosing not to Choose: Reproductive Responses of Parents of Children with Genetic Conditions or Impairments, Sociology of Health and Illness, 31, 1, 81-97. Lancaster, J. (2011). ‘So what if my baby’s born like me?’ http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b010n37y accessed 16 November 2011. Larson, E. (1998) Reframing the Meaning of Disability to Families: The Embrace of Paradox, Social Science And Medicine, 47, 7, 865-875. McCord, J. and Schwaber Kerson, T. (2006). Conducting Intensive Interviews Using Email: A Serendipitous Comparative Opportunity, Qualitative Social Work, 5, 3, 389-406. National Screening Committee. (2010) Screening Tests for You and Your Baby (Version 6) http://fetalanomaly.screening.nhs.uk/cms.php?folder=2442 (accessed 29 January 2012). Opera, G., Kröber, S., McWhorter, M., Rossoll, W., Müller, S., Krawczak, M., Bassell, G., Beattie, C. and Wirth, B. (2008) Plastin 3 is a protective modifier of autosomal recessive Spinal Muscular Atrophy, Science, 320, 524-527. Parens, E. and Asch, A. (2000) The Disability Rights Critique of Prenatal Testing: Reflections and Recommendations. In Parens, E. and Asch, A. (eds) Prenatal Testing and Disability Rights, Washington: Georgetown University Press. Parsons, E. and Atkinson, P. (1992) Lay Constructions of Genetic Risk, Sociology of Health and Illness, 14, 4, 437-455. Popay, J. and Williams, G. (1996) Public Health Research and Lay Knowledge, Social Science and Medicine, 42, 5, 759-768. Press, N., Browner, C., Tran, D., Morton, C. and Le Master, B. (1998) Provisional Normalcy and ‘Perfect Babies’: Pregnant Women’s Attitudes Towards Disability in the Context of Prenatal Testing. In Franklin, S. and Ragoné, H. (eds) Reproducing Reproduction: Kinship, Power and Technological Innovation, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Roberts, C. and Franklin, S. (2004) Experiencing New Forms of Genetic Choice: Findings from an Ethnographic Study of Pre-implantation Genetic Diagnosis, Human Fertility, 7, 4, 285-293. Shakespeare, T. (1999) Losing the Plot? Medical and Activist Discourses of Contemporary Genetics and Disability, Sociology of Health and Illness, 21, 5, 669-688. Stockdale, A. and Terry, S. (2002) Advocacy Groups and the New Genetics. In J. Alper, C. Ard, A. Asch, J. Beckwith, P. Conrad and Geller, L. (eds) The Double-Edged Helix: Social Implications of Genetics in a Diverse Society, Baltimore, M.D. : John Hopkins University Press. Wertz, D., Janes, S., Rosenfeld, J. and Erbe, R. (1992) Attitudes Toward the Prenatal Diagnosis of Cystic Fibrosis: Factors Influencing Decision Making Amongst Affected Families, American Journal of Human Genetics, 50, 5, 1077-1085. Williams, C., Alderson, P. and Farsides, B. (2002) What Constitutes Balanced Information in the Practitioners’ Portrayals of Down’s Syndrome? Midwifery,18, 230-237. Wynne, B. (1996) May the Sheep Safely Graze? A Reflexive View of the Expert-Lay Knowledge Divide. In Lash, S. Bronislaw, S. and Wynne, B. (eds) Risk, Environment and Modernity: Towards A New Ecology of Risk, London: Sage.|
Actions (login required)