IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v65y2007i11p2342-2356.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Sometimes doing the right thing sucks: Frame combinations and multi-fetal pregnancy reduction decision difficulty

Author

Listed:
  • Britt, David W.
  • Evans, Mark I.

Abstract

Data are analyzed for 54 women who made an appointment with a North American Center specializing in multifetal pregnancy reduction (MFPR) to be counseled and possibly have a reduction. The impact on decision difficulty of combinations of three frames through which patients may understand and consider their options and use to justify their decisions are examined: a conceptional frame marked by a belief that life begins at conception; a medical frame marked by a belief in the statistics regarding risk and risk prevention through selective reduction; and a lifestyle frame marked by a belief that a balance of children and career has normative value. All data were gathered through semi-structured interviews and observation during the visit to the center over an average 2.5Â h period. Decision difficulty was indicated by self-assessed decision difficulty and by residual emotional turmoil surrounding the decision. Qualitative comparative analysis was used to analyze the impact of combinations of frames on decision difficulty. Separate analyses were conducted for those reducing only to three fetuses (or deciding not to reduce) and women who chose to reduce below three fetuses. Results indicated that for those with a non-intense conceptional frame, the decision was comparatively easy no matter whether the patients had high or low values of medical and lifestyle frames. For those with an intense conceptional frame, the decision was almost uniformly difficult, with the exception of those who chose to reduce only to three fetuses. Simplifying the results to their most parsimonious scenarios oversimplifies the results and precludes an understanding of how women can feel pulled in different directions by the dictates of the frames they hold. Variations in the characterization of intense medical frames, for example, can both pull toward reduction to two fetuses and neutralize shame and guilt by seeming to remove personal responsibility for the decision. We conclude that the examination of frame combinations is an important tool for understanding the way women carrying multiple fetuses negotiate their way through multi-fetal pregnancies, and that it may have more general relevance for understanding pregnancy decisions in context.

Suggested Citation

  • Britt, David W. & Evans, Mark I., 2007. "Sometimes doing the right thing sucks: Frame combinations and multi-fetal pregnancy reduction decision difficulty," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 65(11), pages 2342-2356, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:65:y:2007:i:11:p:2342-2356
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277-9536(07)00361-9
    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. Braunack-Mayer, Annette, 2001. "Casuistry as bioethical method: an empirical perspective," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 71-81, July.
    2. Scully, Jackie Leach & Banks, Sarah & Shakespeare, Tom W., 2006. "Chance, choice and control: Lay debate on prenatal social sex selection," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 21-31, 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. Kaur, Navjotpal & Ricciardelli, Rosemary, 2020. "Negotiating risk and choice in multifetal pregnancies," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 252(C).

    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. Bombard, Yvonne & Abelson, Julia & Simeonov, Dorina & Gauvin, Francois-Pierre, 2011. "Eliciting ethical and social values in health technology assessment: A participatory approach," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 73(1), pages 135-144, July.
    3. Reid, Bernie & Sinclair, Marlene & Barr, Owen & Dobbs, Frank & Crealey, Grainne, 2009. "A meta-synthesis of pregnant women's decision-making processes with regard to antenatal screening for Down syndrome," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 69(11), pages 1561-1573, December.
    4. Kok, Niek & Hoedemaekers, Cornelia & Fuchs, Malaika & van der Hoeven, Hans & Zegers, Marieke & van Gurp, Jelle, 2024. "Evaluating the use of casuistry during moral case deliberation in the ICU: A multiple qualitative case study," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 345(C).
    5. Vincenzo Pavone & Flor Arias, 2010. "Pre-Implantation Genetic Testing in Spain: beyond the geneticization thesis," Working Papers 1012, Instituto de Políticas y Bienes Públicos (IPP), CSIC.
    6. De Vries, Raymond & Stanczyk, Aimee & Wall, Ian F. & Uhlmann, Rebecca & Damschroder, Laura J. & Kim, Scott Y., 2010. "Assessing the quality of democratic deliberation: A case study of public deliberation on the ethics of surrogate consent for research," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 70(12), pages 1896-1903, June.

    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:65:y:2007:i:11:p:2342-2356. 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.