Normalizing Atypical Genitalia: How a Heated Debate Went Astray

Hastings Center Report 42 (6):32-44 (2012)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

In a series of essays and letters published in 2010, commentators in bioethics debated the ethics of two interventions that aim to prevent or treat a symptom of a genetic condition called congenital adrenal hyperplasia, which can cause “virilization” in affected baby girls—the development of atypical, sometimes masculine‐appearing, genitals. Surgeries are often performed to try to “normalize” both the appearance and the function of affected girls’ genitals, and a drug thought to prevent virilization is sometimes prescribed to pregnant women who are likeliest to be carrying an affected fetus. The CAH debates suggest that there is profound disagreement in the field about whether preventing or treating virilization is an appropriate goal of medicine—or, indeed, parenting. Of course, that disagreement has its roots in ongoing debates about how to understand and react to a range of anatomical and behavioral differences, from short stature to deafness to hyperactivity, as well as ongoing debates about the limits of autonomy—in this case, parental autonomy, which is all the more complex. These issues are at the heart of bioethics. Yet it can be very difficult for us to talk and write respectfully and clearly about them. Here, I recount the debates, show how they lost focus, and attempt to explain why the question about how parents and physicians should respond to atypical genitalia in children is so important and difficult. I argue that it is not a question that should be answered based on a single principle or philosophical commitment. No one principle can do all of the work. For each individual or family that faces it, the question is shaped by details about particular interventions aimed at altering a particular difference and offered in a particular social and family context. Scholars in bioethics who hold an especially strong commitment to any one principle should advocate for their views, but they must also make room for and respect the kind of pragmatic, particularized decision‐making that parents sometimes engage in.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 93,590

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

More Rhetoric Than Argument?Ellen K. Feder, Alice Dreger & Anne Tamar-Mattis - 2013 - Hastings Center Report 43 (2):4-6.
The Author Replies.Josephine Johnston - 2013 - Hastings Center Report 43 (2):6-6.
Toward a Coherent Account of Pediatric Decision Making.Ana S. Iltis - 2010 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 35 (5):526-552.
The All-Affected Principle and the Question of Asymmetry.Andreas Bengtson - 2021 - Political Research Quarterly 3 (74):718-728.
Moral psychology and genetic engineering.Gregory E. Kaebnick - 2016 - Hastings Center Report 46 (3):2-2.
How Many Parents Should There Be in a Family?Kalle Grill - 2020 - Journal of Applied Philosophy (3):467-484.
What is Evidence of Evidence Evidence of?Fabio Lampert & John Biro - 2017 - Logos and Episteme 8 (2):195-206.

Analytics

Added to PP
2013-11-22

Downloads
17 (#213,731)

6 months
7 (#1,397,300)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Josephine Johnston
The Hastings Center

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations