When discussing societal moral codes and scrutiny of “blameworthy” reproductive behaviours, it is interesting to go back to Linda McClain’s work on American public policy and reproductive responsibility. Focusing on judgmental attitudes towards single, teenage or indigent parents, McClain criticises the ideological heaping of blame on individuals.
Can ideology be enforced on biological urges? There seem [...]
Going back to Hallowell’s accounts of non-carrier fathers, there was a strong representation of the idea that transmitting a mutation to one’s children is regarded as a personal matter. It may be unintentional, but it is constructed as blameworthy. However since carriers actually view themselves as unwitting participants, those who do transmit a mutation believe [...]
Tagged blame, guilt, intentionChapple et al . (1995) observed that carrier and non-carrier women who had attended genetic counselling felt personally responsible and blamed themselves for their children’s disabilities and impairments, and did not change their views when it was explained that their child’s disorder was caused by genetic mutations that were out of their personal control. (Hallowell)
Guilt [...]
The testimonials of carriers and non-carriers reveal a definition of responsibility derived from a desire to portray oneself as a responsible parent. Looking at the differences between the reaction to positive or negative test results, it seem that the need to align the parent’s perception of self with a defensible definition of responsible behaviour triggers [...]
Tagged creative, narrative, selfLooking back at Hallowell’s reseach, according to the non-carriers genetic responsibility is demonstrated by taking an active approach: getting tested, disclosing the genetic information and making reproductive desicions accordingly.
On the other hand genetic determinism, which was demonstrated by many of the carriers is seen as a form of passivity in case of risk.
(image: Fatalism by [...]
There is an uneven use of exoneration towards family members. When a genetic mutation is discovered throughout the family line, the older generations are exonerated from blame. This is due to the apparent lack of intentions, evident by acceptable genetic ignorance in time of conception as well as the destructive effect blame can have on [...]
Tagged blame, generation, riskLegal scholar Linda McClain highlights the cultural tendency in American society to view procreation choices within the realms of personal responsibility rather than unfettered individual rights. This cultural view corresponds with a shift in law and public policy, demonstrated by the Bush government’s premise to promote marriage and two-parent families.
“In the rhetoric of irresponsibility, reproductive [...]
Andre, Fleck, Tomlinson claim that unless there is a risk of harm or burden, lighthearted or even thoughtless action cannot be labeled irresponsible. However all aspects of procreation hold a risk of harm or burden, so does that mean that any light hearted act of conception is automatically deemed irresponsible?
They go on to discuss the [...]
“…irresponsibility is different from wrongness, and almost completely separable from the actual results of what one does. Acting irresponsibly involves the manner in which one makes a decision, considered in the light of possible outcomes of that decision, but not determined by what actually happens.” (Andre, Fleck, Tomlinson 2000)
Does responsibility rely on intentions? Can one [...]
So do contrasts in perception of responsibility depend upon the level of involvement? Those who experience it first hand as carriers, (or even non-carriers within a carrier family) seem to see a wider spectrum to the debate, while non-carriers or are more judgemental and build a more precise definition of their view on right and [...]
Tagged carrier, moral, non-carrier, perception