IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v66y2008i2p289-300.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Understanding feticide: An analytic review

Author

Listed:
  • Graham, Ruth H.
  • Robson, Stephen C.
  • Rankin, Judith M.

Abstract

The medical procedure of 'feticide' has been used in clinical practice since the early 1990s in the UK. The procedure constitutes a sensitive aspect of late termination of pregnancy (TOP), an issue that is in itself contentious. The procedure has attracted attention from academic and policy commentators, but recently the medical profession has expressed some uncertainty with respect to the legal position of live birth following TOP, and professional discretion in providing feticide. To understand the meaning of these comments better, we argue that it is helpful to acknowledge the rhetoric that shapes the academic discourse on feticide. In this paper, we review how feticide has been conceptualised within academic discourse, demonstrating that the concept has multiple meanings, some of which could be considered politically charged. We then consider some examples of the comments made about the legal uncertainties of feticide, highlighting assumptions made about the problematic nature of professional discretion. Ultimately, we suggest that a better understanding of the context of feticide is needed to ensure that future research in this area of health care engages adequately with issues of professional discretion.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:66:y:2008:i:2:p:289-300
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277-9536(07)00454-6
    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. Simonds, Wendy & Ellertson, Charlotte & Springer, Kimberly & Winikoff, Beverly, 1998. "Abortion, revised: participants in the U.S. clinical trials evaluate mifepristone," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 46(10), pages 1313-1323, March.
    2. Oaks, Laury, 2003. "Antiabortion positions and young women's life plans in contemporary Ireland," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 56(9), pages 1973-1986, May.
    3. Asch, A., 1999. "Prenatal diagnosis and selective abortion: A challenge to practice and policy," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 89(11), pages 1649-1657.
    4. Getz, Linn & Kirkengen, Anne Luise, 2003. "Ultrasound screening in pregnancy: advancing technology, soft markers for fetal chromosomal aberrations, and unacknowledged ethical dilemmas," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 56(10), pages 2045-2057, May.
    5. 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.
    6. Williams, Clare, 2005. "Framing the fetus in medical work: rituals and practices," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 60(9), pages 2085-2095, May.
    7. Press, Nancy & Browner, C. H., 1997. "Why women say yes to prenatal diagnosis," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 45(7), pages 979-989, October.
    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. Nathalie Auger & Geoffroy Denis, 2012. "Late pregnancy abortions: an analysis of Québec stillbirth data, 1981–2006," International Journal of Public Health, Springer;Swiss School of Public Health (SSPH+), vol. 57(2), pages 443-446, April.

    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Williams, Clare & Sandall, Jane & Lewando-Hundt, Gillian & Heyman, Bob & Spencer, Kevin & Grellier, Rachel, 2005. "Women as moral pioneers? Experiences of first trimester antenatal screening," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 61(9), pages 1983-1992, November.
    4. 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.
    5. Williams, Clare, 2005. "Framing the fetus in medical work: rituals and practices," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 60(9), pages 2085-2095, May.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. Hopkins, Nick & Zeedyk, Suzanne & Raitt, Fiona, 2005. "Visualising abortion: emotion discourse and fetal imagery in a contemporary abortion debate," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 61(2), pages 393-403, July.
    10. 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.
    11. Pfeffer, Naomi, 2008. "What British women say matters to them about donating an aborted fetus to stem cell research: A focus group study," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 66(12), pages 2544-2554, June.
    12. Lalor, Joan & Begley, Cecily M. & Galavan, Eoin, 2009. "Recasting Hope: A process of adaptation following fetal anomaly diagnosis," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 462-472, February.
    13. Marion Haas & Jane Hall & Richard De Abreu Lourenco, 2001. "It's what's expected: genetic testing for inherited conditions, CHERE Discussion Paper No 46," Discussion Papers 46, CHERE, University of Technology, Sydney.
    14. Altshuler, Anna L. & Ojanen-Goldsmith, Alison & Blumenthal, Paul D. & Freedman, Lori R., 2017. "A good abortion experience: A qualitative exploration of women's needs and preferences in clinical care," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 191(C), pages 109-116.
    15. Footman, Katy, 2023. "Structural barriers or patient preference? A mixed methods appraisal of medical abortion use in England and Wales," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 132(C).
    16. Vailly, Joëlle, 2008. "The expansion of abnormality and the biomedical norm: Neonatal screening, prenatal diagnosis and cystic fibrosis in France," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 66(12), pages 2532-2543, June.
    17. Press, Nancy & Reynolds, Susan & Pinsky, Linda & Murthy, Vinaya & Leo, Michael & Burke, Wylie, 2005. "'That's like chopping off a finger because you're afraid it might get broken': Disease and illness in women's views of prophylactic mastectomy," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 61(5), pages 1106-1117, September.
    18. Aisling De Paor & Peter Blanck, 2016. "Precision Medicine and Advancing Genetic Technologies—Disability and Human Rights Perspectives," Laws, MDPI, vol. 5(3), pages 1-23, August.
    19. 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.
    20. Becker, Andréa & Hann, Lena R., 2021. "“It makes it more real”: Examining ambiguous fetal meanings in abortion care," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 272(C).

    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:66:y:2008:i:2:p:289-300. 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.