IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v72y2011i6p992-998.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Negotiating desires and options: How mothers who carry the fragile X gene experience reproductive decisions

Author

Listed:
  • Raspberry, Kelly Amanda
  • Skinner, Debra

Abstract

This paper contributes an empirically-based analysis of how women negotiate reproductive desires and constructions of risk in light of genetic information for a single-gene disorder with known inheritance patterns. Fragile X syndrome (FXS) is the most common cause of inherited intellectual disability and female carriers have a 50% probability with each pregnancy of transmitting the FX gene. We present data from interviews conducted with 108 mothers across the U.S. who participated in a longitudinal, mixed methods study on family adaptations to FXS and who have at least one child with FXS. Women's accounts of their reproductive desires, actions, and reasoning indicate that the known 50% risk of transmitting the FX gene was a powerful deterrent to attempting to have more children through unmediated pregnancy. The majority (77%) decided not to have any more biological children after carrier diagnosis. This decision often required revising previous plans for how many children they would have, how and when they would have them, and what kind of mothers they would be. However, genetic risk was not a primary consideration in the reproductive calculations of 22 women who chose to continue planned and unplanned unmediated pregnancies. Though women's reproductive negotiations are constrained by medical discourse and practices, they are also unpredictable and emerge out of lived experiences and sometimes ambivalent ways of reckoning. While increased availability and accuracy of genetic information and testing contribute to certain forms of family planning that prioritize genetic risk management, we also find that some families call upon alternative understandings and desires for making a family to articulate genetic risk and negotiate their reproductive futures.

Suggested Citation

  • Raspberry, Kelly Amanda & Skinner, Debra, 2011. "Negotiating desires and options: How mothers who carry the fragile X gene experience reproductive decisions," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 72(6), pages 992-998, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:72:y:2011:i:6:p:992-998
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277-9536(11)00052-9
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    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. Markens, Susan & Browner, C. H. & Press, Nancy, 1999. "'Because of the risks': how US pregnant women account for refusing prenatal screening," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 49(3), pages 359-369, August.
    2. 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.
    3. Browner, C. H. & Mabel Preloran, H. & Casado, Maria Christina & Bass, Harold N. & Walker, Ann P., 2003. "Genetic counseling gone awry: miscommunication between prenatal genetic service providers and Mexican-origin clients," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 56(9), pages 1933-1946, May.
    4. Landsman, Gail, 2003. "Emplotting children's lives: developmental delay vs. disability," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 56(9), pages 1947-1960, May.
    5. Heyman, Bob & Hundt, Gillian & Sandall, Jane & Spencer, Kevin & Williams, Clare & Grellier, Rachel & Pitson, Laura, 2006. "On being at higher risk: A qualitative study of prenatal screening for chromosomal anomalies," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 62(10), pages 2360-2372, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Boardman, Felicity Kate, 2014. "The expressivist objection to prenatal testing: The experiences of families living with genetic disease," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 18-25.
    2. Pinar, Candas & Almeling, Rene & Gadarian, Shana Kushner, 2018. "Does genetic risk for common adult diseases influence reproductive plans? Evidence from a national survey experiment in the United States," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 218(C), pages 62-68.
    3. Buchbinder, Mara & Timmermans, Stefan, 2011. "Newborn screening and maternal diagnosis: Rethinking family benefit," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 73(7), pages 1014-1018.
    4. Boardman, Felicity K., 2017. "Experience as knowledge: Disability, distillation and (reprogenetic) decision-making," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 191(C), pages 186-193.

    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. Shaked, Michal, 2005. "The social trajectory of illness: Autism in the ultraorthodox community in Israel," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 61(10), pages 2190-2200, November.
    6. Pinar, Candas & Almeling, Rene & Gadarian, Shana Kushner, 2018. "Does genetic risk for common adult diseases influence reproductive plans? Evidence from a national survey experiment in the United States," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 218(C), pages 62-68.
    7. 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.
    8. Landsman, Gail H., 2006. "What evidence, whose evidence?: Physical therapy in New York State's clinical practice guideline and in the lives of mothers of disabled children," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 62(11), pages 2670-2680, June.
    9. Kissling, Alexandra, 2022. "“Thinking with my dad brain, not my man brain”: Understanding Men's and Women's sterilization risk narratives," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 292(C).
    10. Wild, Kayli & Maypilama, Elaine Lawurrpa & Kildea, Sue & Boyle, Jacqueline & Barclay, Lesley & Rumbold, Alice, 2013. "‘Give us the full story’: Overcoming the challenges to achieving informed choice about fetal anomaly screening in Australian Aboriginal communities," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 351-360.
    11. 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.
    12. 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).
    13. Shaw, Alison, 2011. "Risk and reproductive decisions: British Pakistani couples' responses to genetic counselling," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 73(1), pages 111-120, July.
    14. Green, Sara Eleanor, 2007. ""We're tired, not sad": Benefits and burdens of mothering a child with a disability," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 64(1), pages 150-163, January.
    15. Armstrong, Natalie & Murphy, Elizabeth, 2008. "Weaving meaning? An exploration of the interplay between lay and professional understandings of cervical cancer risk," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 67(7), pages 1074-1082, October.
    16. Shostak, Sara & Zarhin, Dana & Ottman, Ruth, 2011. "What's at stake? Genetic information from the perspective of people with epilepsy and their family members," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 73(5), pages 645-654, September.
    17. Shim, Jae-Mahn & Kim, Jibum, 2020. "Contextualizing geneticization and medical pluralism: How variable institutionalization of traditional, complementary, and alternative medicine (TCAM) conditions effects of genetic beliefs on utilizat," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 267(C).
    18. Sarkar, Soumodip & Mateus, Sara, 2022. "Value creation using minimal resources – A meta-synthesis of frugal innovation," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 179(C).
    19. Ivry, Tsipy & Teman, Elly & Frumkin, Ayala, 2011. "God-sent ordeals and their discontents: Ultra-orthodox Jewish women negotiate prenatal testing," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 72(9), pages 1527-1533, May.
    20. 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.

    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:72:y:2011:i:6:p:992-998. 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.