This article analyzes how medical and scientific discourses surrounding the Dalkon Shield legitimized and authorized the punishment and control of women's bodies. Women who used, or were targeted as potential users of, the Dalkon Shield intrauterine device were judged according to normative constructions of sex, hegemonic heterosexuality, and race. Eugenics and population control discourses were significant in classifying particular women as inferior and abnormal. Via pathologizing discourses and practices, the reproduction and sexual capacities of women, as a sexed group, were targeted and disciplined.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bacigal, R. (1990). The limits of litigation: The Dalkon Shield controversy. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
2.
Bartky, S. (1988). Foucault, feminism and the modernization of patriarchal power. In I. Diamond & L. Quinby (Eds.), Feminism and Foucault: Reflections on resistance (pp. 61-87). Boston: Northeastern University Press.
3.
Bordo, S. (1989). The body and the reproduction of femininity: A feminist appropriation of Foucault. In A. Jaguar & S. Bordo (Eds.), Gender/body/knowledge: Feminist reconstructions of being and knowing (pp. 13-33). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
4.
Corea, G. (1985). How American medicine treats women as patients and professionals. New York: William Morrow.
5.
Davis, H. (1970). The Shield intrauterine device. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 106, 455-456.
6.
Davis, H. (1971). Intrauterine devices for contraception: The IUD. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins.
7.
Foucault, M. (1976). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. London: Penguin.
8.
Garland, D. (1990). Punishment and modern society. Oxford, UK: Clarendon.
9.
Grant, N. (1992). The selling of contraception. Columbus: Ohio State University Press.
10.
Greenhill, J. P. (1965). Obstetrics. Philadelphia: Saunders. (From the original text by Joseph B. de Lee)
11.
Hartmann, B. (1987). Reproductive rights and wrongs: The global politics of population control and contraceptive choice. New York: Harper and Row.
12.
Hawkinson v. A. H. Robins Co., Inc., 595 F. Supp. 1290. (1982).
13.
Hicks, K. (1994). Surviving the Dalkon Shield IUD. New York: Teachers College Press.
14.
Howe, A. (1994). Punish and critique: Towards a feminist analysis of penalty. New York: Routledge.
15.
Mintz, M. (1986). At any cost: Corporate greed, women and the Dalkon Shield. New York: Pathenon.
16.
Palmer v. A. H. Robins Co., Inc. 684 Pacific Reporter 187.
17.
Perry, S. , & Dawson, J. (1985). Nightmare: Women and the Dalkon Shield. New York: Macmillan.
18.
Robins, A. H. (1971). Who are candidates for the Dalkon Shield? A progress report (Advertisement in medical journals). Los Angeles: Author.
19.
Tetuan v. A. H. Robins Co., Inc. 738 Pacific Reporter 1210. (1987).
20.
U.S. Food and Drug Administration . (1968). Report on intrauterine contraceptive devices. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
21.
Worsham v. A. H. Robins Co., Inc. 734 Federal Reporter 676. (1981).
