Graduate studies at Western
Medicine Studies 2 (3):197-209 (2010)
|Abstract||Since the introduction of ultrasound technology in the 1960s as a tool to visibly articulate the interiors of the pregnant body, feminist scholars across disciplines have provided extensive critique regarding the visual culture of fetal imagery. Central to this discourse is the position that fetal images occupy- as products of a visualizing technology that at once penetrates and severs pregnant and fetal bodies. This visual excision, feminist scholars describe, has led not only to an erasure of the female body from fetal images but also to an erasure of the pregnant body in social, political, and biomedical discourses. Vital to feminist scholarship is, thereby, an engagement with fetal images in ways that reinscribe the pregnant body onto fetal images and into political discourses pertaining to reproductive rights. In this paper, similar to the feminist aim, I am interested in engaging with fetal images as way to gain agency for pregnant women and their bodies. The critical question that I ask is: Can we conceive of medical technology in an embodied way -one that interacts organically, dynamically, and through multisensory dimensions with pregnant bodies? In attempting to answer this question, I turn to Bruno Latour and Gilles Deleuze’s articulations of how bodies and machines interact to produce visual fact|
|Keywords||Fetal images History of obstetrical ultrasound Reproduction|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Joanne Boucher (2004). Ultrasound: A Window to the Womb?: Obstetric Ultrasound and the Abortion Rights Debate. Journal of Medical Humanities 25 (1):7-19.
S. Squier (1996). Fetal Subjects and Maternal Objects: Reproductive Technology and the New Fetal/Maternal Relation. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 21 (5):515-535.
Verina Wild (2012). How Are Pregnant Women Vulnerable Research Participants? International Journal of Feminist Approaches to Bioethics 5 (2):82-104.
David Orentlicher (2011). The Legislative Process Is Not Fit for the Abortion Debate. Hastings Center Report 41 (4):13-14.
Rosemarie Tong (1992). Blessed Are the Peacemakers: Commentary on Making Peace in Gestational Conflicts. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 13 (4).
Lynn M. Morgan (1996). Fetal Relationality in Feminist Philosophy: An Anthropological Critique. Hypatia 11 (3):47 - 70.
Laura M. Purdy (1990). Are Pregnant Women Fetal Containers? Bioethics 4 (4):273–291.
Anne Drapkin Lyerly, Margaret Olivia Little & Ruth Faden (2008). The Second Wave: Toward Responsible Inclusion of Pregnant Women in Research. International Journal of Feminist Approaches to Bioethics 1 (2):5 - 22.
Rosemary Betterton (2006). Promising Monsters: Pregnant Bodies, Artistic Subjectivity, and Maternal Imagination. Hypatia 21 (1):80-100.
Richard B. Miller (1989). On Transplanting Human Fetal Tissue: Presumptive Duties and the Task of Casuistry. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 14 (6):617-640.
L. De Crespigny & Savulescu, J., Pregnant Women with Fetal Abnormalities: The Forgotten People in the Abortion Debate.
Jacqueline M. Davies (2009). Premature (M)Othering : Levinasian Ethics and the Politics of Fetal Ultrasound Imaging. In Sue Campbell, Letitia Meynell & Susan Sherwin (eds.), Embodiment and Agency. Pennsylvania State University Press.
R. Jo Kornegay (2011). Hursthouse's Virtue Ethics and Abortion: Abortion Ethics Without Metaphysics? [REVIEW] Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 14 (1):51-71.
Laurence B. McCullough & Frank A. Chervenak (2011). An Ethically Justified Framework for Clinical Investigation to Benefit Pregnant and Fetal Patients. American Journal of Bioethics 11 (5):39-49.
Raymond M. Herbenick (1989). Natural Fetal Dependency States and Fetal Dependency Principles. Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association 63:173-181.
Added to index2010-11-19
Total downloads10 ( #114,417 of 739,406 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #61,269 of 739,406 )
How can I increase my downloads?