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

Voicing the lifeworld: Parental accounts of responsibility in genetic consultations for polycystic kidney disease

Listed author(s):
  • Clarke, Angus
  • Sarangi, Srikant
  • Verrier-Jones, Kate
Registered author(s):

    When parents, who are carriers of or are affected by a genetic disorder, make decisions about the health risks faced by their children, there may be multiple factors to consider. These may include the medical benefits, the parents' own experiences of learning about their genetic status, and the future autonomy of the child. Health professionals face the challenge of explaining the possible burdens as well as benefits of testing children, while promoting open communication within families about the risk of an inherited condition. While genetic consultations do not in themselves constitute decision making, parents nevertheless account for their actions and decisions in an attempt to display parental responsibility. In this paper we explore the accounting practices of parents in genetic consultations, focusing on how they articulate their responsibility with regard to testing their at-risk children for autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease (PKD) and the communication issues surrounding the testing process and the disclosing of test results. Based on eight audio-recorded and transcribed genetic consultations from the UK, and drawing upon rhetorical discourse analysis, our findings suggest that (i) parents tend to foreground their practical 'lifeworld' considerations to justify their decisional actions; and (ii) there is considerable variation in the ways in which parents respond to information and advice offered by the professionals. The affected parent often presents their lifeworld concerns as outweighing, at least for the present moment, the longer term health benefits that might accrue to their children.

    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): 72 (2011)
    Issue (Month): 11 (June)
    Pages: 1743-1751

    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:72:y:2011:i:11:p:1743-1751
    Contact details of provider: Web page:

    Order Information: Postal:

    References listed on IDEAS
    Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

    in new window

    1. Wertz, Dorothy C., 1992. "Ethical and legal implications of the new genetics: Issues for discussion," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 35(4), pages 495-505, August.
    2. 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.
    3. Arribas-Ayllon, Michael & Sarangi, Srikant & Clarke, Angus, 2008. "Managing self-responsibility through other-oriented blame: Family accounts of genetic testing," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 66(7), pages 1521-1532, April.
    4. Taylor, Sandra D., 2004. "Predictive genetic test decisions for Huntington's disease: context, appraisal and new moral imperatives," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 58(1), pages 137-149, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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:72:y:2011:i:11:p:1743-1751. 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.