IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

'Because of the risks': how US pregnant women account for refusing prenatal screening

Listed author(s):
  • Markens, Susan
  • Browner, C. H.
  • Press, Nancy
Registered author(s):

    Most research on prenatal fetal testing in general, and maternal alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) screening in particular, has focused on women who accept and even actively seek prenatal diagnosis. Much of this work suggests that agreeing to prenatal diagnosis is inextricably linked to the processes associated with the 'medicalization' of reproduction and that most women do not see refusal as an option. In contrast, little attention has been paid to women who decline fetal diagnosis. Instead, it is generally assumed that women who do so are resisting this thrust toward medicalization and/or are opposed to abortion. Our research is designed to address this imbalance. We analyze how a group of US women who refused the offer of AFP screening account for their decisions and compare their explanations with those of women who took the test. Contrary to our expectations, we found that refusal did not signify rejection of and/or resistance to the offerings of science and technology. Rather, women who refused often employed biomedical categories, particularly the concept of 'risk', to reject its very offerings. Furthermore, refusers and acceptors were more alike than different in their views on abortion, medicalization and pregnancy. We conclude that the key difference between the two groups lies in their interpretation and application of biomedical concepts and modern risk-assessment.

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

    Article provided by Elsevier in its journal Social Science & Medicine.

    Volume (Year): 49 (1999)
    Issue (Month): 3 (August)
    Pages: 359-369

    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:49:y:1999:i:3:p:359-369
    Contact details of provider: Web page:

    Order Information: Postal:

    No references listed on IDEAS
    You can help add them by filling out this form.

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:49:y:1999:i:3:p:359-369. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu)

    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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.