Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Ideal Positions: 3D Sonography, Medical Visuality, Popular Culture

  • Published:
Journal of Medical Humanities Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

As digital technologies are integrated into medical environments, they continue to transform the experience of contemporary health care. Importantly, medicine is increasingly visual. In the history of sonography, visibility has played an important role in accessing fetal bodies for diagnostic and entertainment purposes. With the advent of three-dimensional (3D) rendering, sonography presents the fetus visually as already a child. The aesthetics of this process and the resulting imagery, made possible in digital networks, discloses important changes in the relationship between technology and biology, reproductive health and political debates, and biotechnology and culture.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • “Baby’s First Image.” Accessed October 30, 2013. http://www.babysfirstimage.com/Home.html.

  • Berlant, Lauren. 1997. The Queen of America Goes to Washington City: Essays on Sex and Citizenship. Durham: Duke University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berman, Mimi and Diana Kawai Yankowitz. 1997. “Principles of Scanning in Obstetric and Gynecological Ultrasound.” In Obstetrics and Gynecology: Second Edition, edited by Mimi Berman and Harris Cohen, (3-20). Philadelphia and New York: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Black, Rita Beck. 1992. “Seeing the Baby: The Impact of Ultrasound Technology.” Journal of Genetic Counseling 1 (1): 45-54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bolter, Jay David and Richard Grusin. 1999. Remediation: Understanding New Media. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Callahan, Daniel. 1986. “How Technology is Reframing the Abortion Debate.” The Hastings Center Report 16 (1): 33-42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carlino, Andrea,. 1995. “Knowe Thyself: Anatomical Figures in Early Modern Europe.” RES: Anthropology and Aesthetics 27 (Spring): 52-69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cartwright, Lisa. 1995. Screening the Body: Tracing Medicine’s Visual Culture. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Casper, Monica. 1994. “At The Margins of Humanity: Fetal Positions in Science and Medicine.” Science Technology Human Values 19: 307-323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clarke, Adele. 1998. Disciplining Reproduction: Modernity, American Life Sciences, and The Problems of Sex. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Curtis, Scott. 2004. “Still/Moving: Digital Imaging and Medical Hermeneutics.” In Memory Bytes: History, Technology, and Digital Culture, edited by Lauren Rabinovitz and Abraham Geil, 218-156. Durham, Duke University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dagognet, Francois. 1992. Etienne-Jules Marey: A Passion for the Trace. New York: Zone Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donald, Ian. 1958. “Investigation of Abdominal Masses by Pulsed Ultrasound.” Lancet 1:1188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duden, Barbara. 1993. Disembodying Women: Perspectives on Pregnancy and the Unborn. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • “Facility.” 2003. 4D Fetal Imaging. Accessed November 5, 2013. http://www.4dfetalimaging.com/facility.asp

  • Fox, Karen. 1993. “Random Samples,” Science 262 (5137): 1207.

    Google Scholar 

  • Georges, Eugenia. 1996. “Fetal Ultrasound Imaging and the Production of Authoritative Knowledge in Greece.” Medical Anthropology Quarterly 10 (2): 157-175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • “State Policies in Brief: Requirements for Ultrasound.” 2013, November 1. Guttmacher Institute. Accessed November 5, 2013. http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_RFU.pdf.

  • Hartouni, Valerie. 1993. “Fetal Exposures: Abortion Politics and the Optics of Allusion.” Camera Obscura 29 (May): 198-216.

  • Huggard, Susan K. 1999. “Prenatal Imaging.” The American Journal of Nursing 99 (9): 24A/B and 24D.

  • Jenkins, Henry. 2006. Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide. New York: NYU Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, Carolyn. 2012. “’We Have No Choice’: One Woman’s Ordeal with Texas’ New Sonogram Law.” Texas Observer, March 15. Accessed June 1, 2014. http://www.texasobserver.org/we-have-no-choice-one-womans-ordeal-with-texas-new-sonogram-law/.

  • ----- 2013. “’We Have No Choice’: A Story of the Texas Sonogram Law.” Fresh Air, NPR, January 22. Accessed January 23, 2014. http://www.npr.org/2013/01/22/169059701/we-have-no-choice-a-story-of-the-texas-sonogram-law.

  • Joyce, Kelly. 2005. “Appealing Images: Magnetic Resonance Imaging and the Production of Authoritative Knowledge.” Social Studies of Science 35 (3): 437-462.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keighley, Jennifer M. 2013. “Physician Speech and Mandatory Ultrasound Laws: The First Amendment’s Limit on Compelled Ideological Speech.” Cardozo Law Review 34: 2347- 2405.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelty, Christopher and Hannah Landecker. 2004. “A Theory of Animation: Cells, L-Systems, and Film.” Grey Room 17 (Fall): 30-63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kurjak, Asim, Guillermo Azumendi, and Carmina Comas Gabriel. 2007. “3D Sonography in the Study of the Fetal Face.” In The Fetus in Three Dimensions: Imaging, Embryology, and Fetoscopy, edited by Asim Kurjak and Guillermo Azumendi, 181-214. London: Informa Healthcare.

    Google Scholar 

  • “Life Dynamics.” Accessed November 2, 2009. http://www.prolifeamerica.com/4D-Ultrasound-pictures/index.cfm?photo=4#photos.

  • Meyer-Wittkopf, M., et. al. 2001. “Three-dimensional (3D) echocardiographic analysis of congenital heart disease in the fetus: comparison with cross-sectional (2D) fetal echocardiography.” Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology 17: 485-492.

  • Mitchell, Lisa. 2010. Baby’s First Picture: Ultrasound and the Politics of Fetal Subjects. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, WJT. 2005. What Do Pictures Want?: The Lives and Loves of Images. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, Lynn. 1999. “Materializing the Fetal Body, Or, What Are those Corpses Doing In Biology’s Basement.” In Fetal Subjects, Feminist Positions, edited by Meredith Michaels and Lynn Morgan, 43-60. Pittsburgh: University of Pennsylvania Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, T.R. and Elvins, T.T. 1993. “Visualization of 3D Ultrasound Data.” IEEE Computer Graphics & Applications 13 (6): 50-57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newman, Karen. 1996. Fetal Positions: Individualism, Science, Visuality. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Palmer, Julie. 2009. “The Placental Body in 4D: Everyday Practices on Non-Diagnostic Sonography.” Feminist Review 93: 64-80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petchesky, Rosalind Pollack. 1987. “Fetal Images: The Power of Visual Culture in the Politics of Reproduction.” Feminist Studies 13 (2): 263-292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rados, Carol. 2004. “FDA Cautions Against Ultrasound ‘Keepsake’ Images.” FDA Consumer Magazine, January-February. Accessed August 5, 2010. http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/2004/104_images.html.

  • Rapp, Rayna. 2007. “Real-Time Fetus: The Role of the Sonogram in the Age of Monitored Reproduction.” In Beyond the Body Proper: Reading the Anthropology of Material Life, edited by Margaret Lock and Judith Farquhar, 608-622. Durham: Duke University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandelowski, Margarete. 1994. “Separate, but Less Unequal: Fetal Ultrasonography and the Transformation of Expectant Mother/Fatherhood.” Gender and Society 8 (2): 230-245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Santora, Marc. 2004. “Fetal Photos: Keepsake or Health Risk.” New York Times, May 17.

  • Schmidgen, Henning. 2004. “Pictures, Preparations, and Living Processes: The Production of Immediate Visual Perception (Anschauung) in Late-19th-Century Physiology” Journal of the History of Biology 37 (3): 477-513.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sconce, Jeff. 2000. Haunted Media: Electronic Presence from Telegraphy to Television. Durham: Duke University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, Janelle S, 1992. “The Public Fetus and the Family Car: From Abortion Politic to a Volvo Advertisement.” Public Culture 4(2): 67-80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Terry, Jennifer. 1989. “The Body Invaded: Medical Surveillance of Women as Reproducers.” Socialist Review 19 (July-September): 13-43.

  • Tuning, Nicole. 2007. “Does Spatiotemporal Image Correlation Enhance the Diagnostic Usefulness of 3D and 4D Fetal Cardiac Imaging? A Literature Review.” Journal of Diagnostic Medical Sonography 23: 75-84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Twining, Peter, Josephine McHugo, and David Pilling. 2007. Textbook of Fetal Abnormalities, 2nd ed. China: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Voelkler, Rebecca. 2005. “The Business of Baby Pictures: Controversy Brews Over ‘Keepskae’ Fetal Ultrasounds,” JAMA 293(1): 25-27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • “Testimonials.” Baby’s First Photo. Accessed November 13, 2008. http://www.babys1photos.com/testimonials.htm.

  • Yoxen, Edward. 1989. “Seeing with Sound: A Study of the Development of Medical Images.” In The Social Construction of Technological Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology, edited by Wiebe B. Bijker, Thomas P. Hughes, and Trevor Pinch, 281-303. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Redlands, Redlands, CA, USA

    Tim Seiber

Authors
  1. Tim Seiber
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tim Seiber.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Seiber, T. Ideal Positions: 3D Sonography, Medical Visuality, Popular Culture. J Med Humanit 37, 19–34 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10912-015-9350-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10912-015-9350-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation