Assessing child welfare under the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008: a case study in medicalisation?
Assessing child welfare under the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008: a case study in medicalisation?
复制标题
DOI：
10.1111/1467-9566.12078
复制
发表时间：
2014-05-01
影响因子：
2.9
通讯作者：
Sheldon, Sally
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Lee, Ellie;Macvarish, Jan;Sheldon, Sally
这篇文章报道了一项与英国辅助受孕诊所工作人员进行的关于在受孕前进行儿童福利(WOC)评估的研究。根据2008年修订的《人类受精和胚胎学法案》第13(5)条，这方面的不孕不育治疗是强制性的。这项研究的目的是找出法律的这一变化对实践产生了怎样的影响。在描述我们的发现时，我们也为生殖医学化的学术做出了贡献。S13(5)经常被讨论为医疗化的一个主要例子，赋予诊所以儿童福利为由批准或拒绝获得治疗的权力，涵盖的远远不止纯粹的临床考虑。然而，尽管这种医疗化可能在法律中根深蒂固，但我们的发现表明，这种权力的使用非常轻微。此外，虽然我们的受访者几乎普遍支持有必要考虑儿童福利，但现在的理由是，这不仅涉及家庭形式(例如，对父亲形象的需求)，而且还涉及父母与子女之间互动的质量。在这一点上，我们认为，医学化的概念可能为理解一个复杂得多的现实提供了一个相当生硬的工具。
This article reports on a study with staff working in assisted conception clinics in the UK about making welfare of the child (WOC) assessments pre-conception. This aspect of infertility treatment is obligatory under section 13(5) of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act, which was amended in 2008. The aim of the study was to find out how this change to the law had impacted on practice. In describing what we found, we also make a contribution to scholarship about the medicalisation of reproduction. S13(5) has often been discussed as a prime example of medicalisation, giving clinics power to grant or deny access to treatment on child welfare grounds, encompassing far more than purely clinical considerations. Yet, while such medicalisation may be entrenched in the law, our findings suggest this power is used with a very light touch. Further, while our interviewees offered near-universal support for the need to consider child welfare, this is now justified by concerns that address not only family form (e.g. the need for a father figure) but also the quality of interactions between parents and children. In this light we suggest that the concept of medicalisation may offer a rather blunt tool for understanding a far more complex reality.