David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jonathan Jenkins Ichikawa
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Hypatia 21 (1):35-53 (2006)
: This article critically examines the constitution of impairment in prenatal testing and screening practices and various discourses that surround these technologies. While technologies to test and screen prenatally are claimed to enhance women's capacity to be self-determining, make informed reproductive choices, and, in effect, wrest control of their bodies from a patriarchal medical establishment, I contend that this emerging relation between pregnant women and reproductive technologies is a new strategy of a form of power that began to emerge in the late eighteenth century. Indeed, my argument is that the constitution of prenatal impairment, by and through these practices and procedures, is a widening form of modern government that increasingly limits the field of possible conduct in response to pregnancy. Hence, the government of impairment in utero is inextricably intertwined with the government of the maternal body.
|Keywords||disability selective abortion governmentality neoliberalism prenatal testing and screening reproductive freedom|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
Ian Hacking (1999). The Social Construction of What? Harvard University Press.
Allen E. Buchanan, Dan W. Brock, Norman Daniels & Daniel Wikler (2000). From Chance to Choice: Genetics and Justice. Cambridge University Press.
Christopher Boorse (1977). Health as a Theoretical Concept. Philosophy of Science 44 (4):542-573.
Citations of this work BETA
Anita Ho (2008). The Individualist Model of Autonomy and the Challenge of Disability. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 5 (2/3):193-207.
Shelley Tremain (2008). The Biopolitics of Bioethics and Disability. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 5 (2/3):101-106.
Shelley Tremain (2010). Biopower, Styles of Reasoning, and What's Still Missing From the Stem Cell Debates. Hypatia 25 (3):577 - 609.
Shelley Tremain (2013). Educating Jouy. Hypatia 28 (2):801-817.
Reinhard Kreissl (2014). Assessing Security Technology's Impact: Old Tools for New Problems. Science and Engineering Ethics 20 (3):659-673.
Similar books and articles
Elisabeth Gedge (2011). Reproductive Choice and the Ideals of Parenting. International Journal of Feminist Approaches to Bioethics 4 (2):32-47.
Robert Sparrow (2008). Is It “Every Man's Right to Have Babies If He Wants Them”?: Male Pregnancy and the Limits of Reproductive Liberty. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 18 (3):pp. 275-299.
Carla Saenz (2010). Virtue Ethics and the Selection of Children with Impairments: A Reply to Rosalind McDougall. Bioethics 24 (9):499-506.
Maren Klawiter (1990). Using Arendt and Heidegger to Consider Feminist Thinking on Women and Reproductive / Infertility Technologies. Hypatia 5 (3):65 - 89.
Rebecca A. Schwartz-Mette (2009). Challenges in Addressing Graduate Student Impairment in Academic Professional Psychology Programs. Ethics and Behavior 19 (2):91 – 102.
Jonathan C. Pettibone, Daniel J. Segrist, Andrew M. Pomerantz & Bailey E. Williams (2010). How Impaired Is Too Impaired? Ratings of Psychologist Impairment by Psychologists in Independent Practice. Ethics and Behavior 20 (2):149-160.
Bailey E. Williams, Andrew M. Pomerantz, Daniel J. Segrist & Jonathan C. Pettibone (2010). How Impaired is Too Impaired? Ratings of Psychologist Impairment by Psychologists in Independent Practice. Ethics and Behavior 20 (2):149 – 160.
Shelley Tremain (2006). On the Government of Disability: Foucault, Power, and the Subject of Impairment. In Lennard J. Davis (ed.), The Disability Studies Reader. Routledge
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads545 ( #2,041 of 1,938,807 )
Recent downloads (6 months)146 ( #877 of 1,938,807 )
How can I increase my downloads?