IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v63y2006i5p1213-1224.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Social welfare, genetic welfare? Boundary-work in the IVF/PGD clinic

Author

Listed:
  • Ehrich, Kathryn
  • Williams, Clare
  • Scott, Rosamund
  • Sandall, Jane
  • Farsides, Bobbie

Abstract

Through the lens of the 'welfare of the child' assessment, this paper explores how staff working in the area of in vitro fertilisation and preimplantation genetic diagnosis (IVF/PGD) balance reflexive relations of legitimacy and accountability between the public and private spheres, and between medicine, the citizen and the state. The wider research of which this analysis is a part uses multiple methods to study two National Health Service Assisted Conception Units in England. Research methods used included observation clinics and interviews with staff from a range of disciplines. We illustrate how the staff reveal tensions between their views that the welfare of the child assessment can be seen as intrusive and discriminatory, and on the other hand that medical intervention in reproduction should be socially and professionally accountable. These tensions can be understood sociologically in terms of a gradual movement from socially based solutions to fertility problems and disabilities, towards a biomedical, and arguably genetically oriented worldview of such problems. Rather than being viewed as discrete, these two orientations should be seen as indicating an emergent direction of travel along a continuum, with elements of both being present in the accounts. We argue that consideration of the welfare of the child involves staff in ethical boundary-work across the two orientations and between the accountabilities and responsibilities of healthcare professionals, individuals and the state.

Suggested Citation

  • Ehrich, Kathryn & Williams, Clare & Scott, Rosamund & Sandall, Jane & Farsides, Bobbie, 2006. "Social welfare, genetic welfare? Boundary-work in the IVF/PGD clinic," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 63(5), pages 1213-1224, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:63:y:2006:i:5:p:1213-1224
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277-9536(06)00138-9
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Williams, Clare & Alderson, Priscilla & Farsides, Bobbie, 2002. "Too many choices? Hospital and community staff reflect on the future of prenatal screening," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 55(5), pages 743-753, September.
    2. Krones, Tanja & Schlüter, Elmar & Neuwohner, Elke & El Ansari, Susan & Wissner, Thomas & Richter, Gerd, 2006. "What is the preimplantation embryo?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 1-20, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Williams, Clare & Ehrich, Kathryn & Farsides, Bobbie & Scott, Rosamund, 2007. "Facilitating choice, framing choice: Staff views on widening the scope of preimplantation genetic diagnosis in the UK," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 65(6), pages 1094-1105, September.
    2. Ehrich, Kathryn & Williams, Clare & Farsides, Bobbie, 2010. "Fresh or frozen? Classifying 'spare' embryos for donation to human embryonic stem cell research," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 71(12), pages 2204-2211, December.
    3. Zarhin, Dana & Negev, Maya & Vulfsons, Simon & Sznitman, Sharon R., 2018. "Rhetorical and regulatory boundary-work: The case of medical cannabis policy-making in Israel," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 217(C), pages 1-9.
    4. Miner, Skye A., 2019. "Demarcating the dirty work: Canadian Fertility professionals’ use of boundary-work in contentious egg donation," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 221(C), pages 19-26.
    5. Johnson, Katherine M., 2013. "Making families: Organizational boundary work in US egg and sperm donation," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 64-71.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Williams, Clare & Ehrich, Kathryn & Farsides, Bobbie & Scott, Rosamund, 2007. "Facilitating choice, framing choice: Staff views on widening the scope of preimplantation genetic diagnosis in the UK," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 65(6), pages 1094-1105, September.
    2. García, Elisa & Timmermans, Danielle R.M. & van Leeuwen, Evert, 2008. "The impact of ethical beliefs on decisions about prenatal screening tests: Searching for justification," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 66(3), pages 753-764, February.
    3. Valentine, Kylie, 2010. "A consideration of medicalisation: Choice, engagement and other responsibilities of parents of children with autism spectrum disorder," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 71(5), pages 950-957, September.
    4. Hashiloni-Dolev, Yael & Shkedi, Shiri, 2007. "On new reproductive technologies and family ethics: Pre-implantation genetic diagnosis for sibling donor in Israel and Germany," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 65(10), pages 2081-2092, November.
    5. Williams, Clare, 2005. "Framing the fetus in medical work: rituals and practices," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 60(9), pages 2085-2095, May.
    6. Kaur, Navjotpal & Ricciardelli, Rosemary, 2020. "Negotiating risk and choice in multifetal pregnancies," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 252(C).
    7. Williams, Clare & Sandall, Jane & Lewando-Hundt, Gillian & Heyman, Bob & Spencer, Kevin & Grellier, Rachel, 2005. "Women as moral pioneers? Experiences of first trimester antenatal screening," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 61(9), pages 1983-1992, November.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:63:y:2006:i:5:p:1213-1224. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.