Prenatal Genetic Testing and Screening: Constructing Needs and Reinforcing Inequities

By A. Lippman. American Journal of Law & Medicine, 2020

651 citations recorded by the source corpus.

This Article considers the influence and implications of the application of genetic technologies to definitions of disease and to the treatment of illness. The concept of “geneticization” is introduced to emphasize the dominant discourse in today's stories of health and disease and the social construction of biological phenomenon is described. The reassurance, choice and control supposedly provided by prenatal genetic testing and screening are critically examined, and their role in constructing the need for such technology is addressed. Using the stories told about prenatal diagnosis as a focus, the consequences of a genetic perspective for and on women and their health care needs are explored.

Subfields: Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/67d1d802141a1dd4b4077e47aec152501100ddec

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health

1. J. Freese
2. J. Niewöhner
3. S. Shostak

Citations in the corpus

• Genetics and Social Inquiry (2009, background): “Social scientists are concerned that these phenomena contribute to individualizing social problems and to relegating social, political, and economic explanations of health and other outcomes to secondary status (Lippman 1991; Duster 2003, 2006).”
• Epigenetics: Embedded bodies and the molecularisation of biography and milieu (2011, background): “The molecularisation of biography and milieu extends in important respects the notions of geneticisation and biologisation, as well as the molecularisation of life itself that have been diagnosed over the past 20 years (cf. Lippman, 1991; Franklin, 2000; Rose, 2001).”