IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v141y2015icp19-26.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Prenatal diagnosis: From policy to practice. Two distinct ways of managing prognostic uncertainty and anticipating disability in Brazil and in France

Author

Listed:
  • Ville, Isabelle
  • Mirlesse, Véronique

Abstract

Prenatal diagnosis (PND) has gradually established itself as part of the pregnancy monitoring process, with a view to reducing the number of births of children exposed to disability by combining the use of biomedical tools with laws that authorise abortion in cases of foetal pathology. This article looks at how laws which vary from one country to another modulate the way in which PND practices are organised on a daily basis, determine the discourse of practitioners and lead them to adopt specific stances during prenatal consultations with couples coping with a foetal anomaly. We present a comparative ethnographic study, which took place between 2009 and 2011 in France and Brazil, in reference units, based on observation of consultations, professional meetings, and interviews with health practitioners. The fact that access to abortion due to foetal pathology is possible in France, and criminalised in Brazil, conditions how doctors analyse the framework of their medical practice and approach the issue of disability with couples during consultations. In France, practitioners would appear to be satisfied with a professional framework that they themselves created. Faced with prognostic uncertainty, the legal obligation to inform encourages them to discuss all of the potential complications of the diagnosed anomalies and leads them to provide probabilistic information about the life of the child to be, supported by evidence-based medicine. In Brazil, in the public service, the lack of access to abortion has created a malaise among practitioners who criticise this impediment to the objective nature of their practice and to the quality of the information that they provide. Some use prognostic uncertainty to direct the thoughts of women and couples towards the dynamics proper to each individual human trajectory within a given family and a specific social environment.

Suggested Citation

  • Ville, Isabelle & Mirlesse, Véronique, 2015. "Prenatal diagnosis: From policy to practice. Two distinct ways of managing prognostic uncertainty and anticipating disability in Brazil and in France," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 19-26.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:141:y:2015:i:c:p:19-26
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2015.07.014
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953615300307
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socscimed.2015.07.014?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Vassy, Carine & Rosman, Sophia & Rousseau, Bénédicte, 2014. "From policy making to service use. Down's syndrome antenatal screening in England, France and the Netherlands," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 67-74.
    2. Novaes, Hillegonda Maria Dutilh, 2000. "Social impacts of technological diffusion: prenatal diagnosis and induced abortion in Brazil," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 50(1), pages 41-51, January.
    3. Mirlesse, Véronique & Ville, Isabelle, 2013. "The uses of ultrasonography in relation to foetal malformations in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 168-175.
    4. Williams, Clare & Alderson, Priscilla & Farsides, Bobbie, 2002. "Is nondirectiveness possible within the context of antenatal screening and testing?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 54(3), pages 339-347, February.
    5. Alderson, Priscilla, 2001. "Down's syndrome: cost, quality and value of life," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 53(5), pages 627-638, September.
    6. García, Elisa & Timmermans, Danielle R.M. & van Leeuwen, Evert, 2008. "The impact of ethical beliefs on decisions about prenatal screening tests: Searching for justification," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 66(3), pages 753-764, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Gammeltoft, Tine & Nguyen, Hanh Thi Thuy, 2007. "Fetal conditions and fatal decisions: Ethical dilemmas in ultrasound screening in Vietnam," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 64(11), pages 2248-2259, June.
    2. Williams, Clare & Ehrich, Kathryn & Farsides, Bobbie & Scott, Rosamund, 2007. "Facilitating choice, framing choice: Staff views on widening the scope of preimplantation genetic diagnosis in the UK," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 65(6), pages 1094-1105, September.
    3. Koch, Lene & Nordahl Svendsen, Mette, 2005. "Providing solutions-defining problems: the imperative of disease prevention in genetic counselling," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 60(4), pages 823-832, February.
    4. Prussing, Erica & Sobo, Elisa J. & Walker, Elizabeth & Kurtin, Paul S., 2005. "Between 'desperation' and disability rights: a narrative analysis of complementary/alternative medicine use by parents for children with Down syndrome," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 60(3), pages 587-598, February.
    5. Vassy, Carine & Rosman, Sophia & Rousseau, Bénédicte, 2014. "From policy making to service use. Down's syndrome antenatal screening in England, France and the Netherlands," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 67-74.
    6. Lehoux, Pascale & Daudelin, Genevieve & Demers-Payette, Olivier & Boivin, Antoine, 2009. "Fostering deliberations about health innovation: What do we want to know from publics?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 68(11), pages 2002-2009, June.
    7. Di Giacomo, Marina & Piacenza, Massimiliano & Siciliani, Luigi & Turati, Gilberto, 2022. "The effect of co-payments on the take-up of prenatal tests," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 81(C).
    8. Hammer, Raphaël P. & Burton-Jeangros, Claudine, 2013. "Tensions around risks in pregnancy: A typology of women's experiences of surveillance medicine," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 55-63.
    9. Löwy, Ilana, 2022. "Non-invasive prenatal testing: A diagnostic innovation shaped by commercial interests and the regulation conundrum," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 304(C).
    10. Ahmed, Shenaz & Bryant, Louise D. & Tizro, Zahra & Shickle, Darren, 2012. "Interpretations of informed choice in antenatal screening: A cross-cultural, Q-methodology study," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 74(7), pages 997-1004.
    11. Reid, Bernie & Sinclair, Marlene & Barr, Owen & Dobbs, Frank & Crealey, Grainne, 2009. "A meta-synthesis of pregnant women's decision-making processes with regard to antenatal screening for Down syndrome," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 69(11), pages 1561-1573, December.
    12. Mirlesse, Véronique & Ville, Isabelle, 2013. "The uses of ultrasonography in relation to foetal malformations in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 168-175.
    13. Williams, Clare, 2005. "Framing the fetus in medical work: rituals and practices," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 60(9), pages 2085-2095, May.
    14. Graham, Ruth H. & Robson, Stephen C. & Rankin, Judith M., 2008. "Understanding feticide: An analytic review," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 66(2), pages 289-300, January.
    15. Gottfre[eth]sdóttir, Helga & Björnsdóttir, Kristín & Sandall, Jane, 2009. "How do prospective parents who decline prenatal screening account for their decision? A qualitative study," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 69(2), pages 274-277, July.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:141:y:2015:i:c:p:19-26. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.