“Naturally, Children”: Bio-politics / Bio-responsible Parenthood at a medico-genetic Consultation

 
PIIS023620070007675-9-1
DOI10.31857/S023620070007675-9
Publication type Article
Status Published
Authors
Occupation: Research Fellow; PhD student at the Department of Media, Culture, and Communication
Affiliation:
Center for Medical Anthropology RAS
NYU Steinhardt
Address: 32a, Leninsky Prosp., Moscow 119334, Russian Federation
Journal nameChelovek
EditionVolume 30 Issue №6
Pages112-129
Abstract

The article explicates the ideas of Rabinow, Rose and several other authors regarding the forms that biopolitics takes in the 21st century in relation to the development of biotechnologies. I substantially respecify these ideas using the data from a field study of genetic consultations in Moscow. On the one hand, in contrast to responsible biological subjects [8, p. 98], at such consultations one can more likely see bio-responsible parents taking care of children. On the other hand, contrary to the traditional image of a geneticist as a person who “embodies” biopower and wants patients to avoid transmission of a hereditary condition, specialists in the genetic diseases of heart and connective tissue considered here often, on the contrary, smoothen more radical opinions of patients, work with their fears and worries. Their goals include teaching the family to properly care for a child with such a condition, plan their lifestyle and physical activity, so that (s)he can live an ordinary life.

Keywordsbiopolitics, bio-responsible parenthood, genetic counseling, geneticist, care for children, planning of parenthood
Received12.12.2019
Publication date12.12.2019
Number of characters37005
Cite  
100 rub.
When subscribing to an article or issue, the user can download PDF, evaluate the publication or contact the author. Need to register.

Number of purchasers: 3, views: 1278

Readers community rating: votes 0

1. Agamben D. Homo Sacer. Suverennaya vlast’ i golaya zhizn’ [Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life]. Moscow: «Evropa» Publ., 2011.

2. Voinilov Yu.L., Polyakova V.V. Moe telo — moya krepost’: obshchestvennoe mnenie o biomeditsinskikh tekhnologiyakh [My body is my fortress: public opinion about biomedical technologies]. Sotsiologii vlasti. 2016. Vol. 28 (1). P. 185–207.

3. Izhevskaya V.L., Ivanova L.Yu. et al. Rezul'taty anketirovaniya roditelei bol'nykh fenilketonuriei detei. 1. Sotsial’no-demograficheskie kharakteristiki respondentov i ikh otnoshenie k diagnostike i lecheniyu zabolevaniya u rebenka [Results of a survey of parents of children with phenylketonuria. 1. Socio-demographic characteristics of the respondents and their attitude to the diagnosis and treatment of the disease in the child]. Meditsinskaya genetika. 2013. Vol. 7 (133). P. 32–40.

4. Tishchenko P.D. Bio-vlast’ v epokhu biotekhnologii [Bio-power in the era of biotechnology]. Moscow: IF RAN Publ., 2001.

5. Tishchenko P.D., Shevchenko S.Yu. Kazus Andzheliny Dzholi i eticheskie problemy sovremennoi onkologii [Case of Angelina Jolie and the ethical problems of modern oncology]. Zhurnal klinicheskoi i eksperimental’noi khirurgii im. akad. B.V. Petrovskogo. 2015. Vol. 4. P. 5–11.

6. Foucault M. Nuzhno zashchishchat’ obshchestvo: kurs lektsii, prochitannykh v Kollezh de Frans v 1975–1976 uchebnom godu [Society Must Be Defended, Lectures at the College de France, 1975–1976.]. Saint Petersburg.: Nauka Publ., 2005.

7. Shadrina A. Dorogie deti: sokrashchenie rozhdaemosti i rost «tseny» materinstva v XXI veke [Expensive children: a decrease in the birth rate and an increase in the “price” of motherhood in the 21st century]. Moscow: Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie Publ., 2017.

8. Yudin G.B. Biopolitika uluchsheniya cheloveka [Biopolitics of human improvement.]. Rabochie tetradi po bioetike. Vyp. 20: Gumanitarnyi analiz biotekhnologicheskikh proektov “uluchsheniya” cheloveka: ed. by B.G. Yudin. Moscow: Izd-vo Mos. gumanitar. un-ta Publ., 2015. P. 91–104.

9. Clarke A. Is non-directive genetic counselling possible? Lancet. 1991. Vol. 338 (8773). P. 998–1001.

10. Dimitrova I. Procreating responsibly: the case of prenatal diagnosis in Bulgaria. The Journal of Social Policy Studies. 2014. Vol. 12 (3). P. 455–466.

11. Elwyn G., Gray J., Clarke A. Shared decision making and non-directiveness in genetic counselling. Journal of Medical Genetics. 2000. Vol. 37. P. 135–138.

12. Geelen, E. G. M. Making genetics not so important: families dealing with genetic testing for a familial heart disease. PhD thesis. Maastricht: Datawyse / Universitaire Pers Maastricht, 2013.

13. Lemke T. From Eugenics to the Government of Genetic Risks. Genetic Governance: Health, Risk and Ethics in the Biotech Era, еds. Bunton R., Peterson A. N.Y.: Routledge, 2005. P. 89–99.

14. Lippman A. Prenatal genetic testing and screening: constructing needs and reinforcing inequities. American Journal of Law and Medicine. 1991. Vol. 17 (1–2). P. 15–50.

15. Novas C., Rose N. Genetic risk and the birth of the somatic individual. Economy and Society. 2000. Vol. 29 (4). P. 485–513.

16. Rabinow P. Artificiality and Enlightenment: From Sociobiology to Biosociality. Essays on the anthropology of reason, ed. Rabinow P. Princeton University Press, 1996. P. 91–111.

17. Rabinow P., Rose N. Biopower Today. BioSocieties. 2006. Vol. 1, N 2. P. 195–217.

18. Taussig K.-S., Rapp R., Heath D. Flexible Eugenics: Technologies of the Self in the Age of Genetics. Anthropologies of Modernity: Foucault, Governmentality, and Life Politics, ed. Inda J. X. Malden, MA and Oxf.: Blackwell, 2005. P. 194–213.

Система Orphus

Loading...
Up