This article reports from a study exploring the social processes, meanings and institutions that frame and produce ‘ethical problems’ and clinical dilemmas for practitioners, scientists and others working in the specialty of preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD). A major topic in the data was that, in contrast to IVF, the aim of PGD is to transfer to the woman’s womb only those embryos likely to be unaffected by serious genetic disorders; that is, to produce ‘healthy babies’. Staff described the complex processes through which embryos in each treatment cycle must meet a double imperative: they must be judged viable by embryologists and ‘unaffected’ by geneticists. In this article, we focus on some of the ethical, social and occupational issues for staff ensuing from PGD’s double imperative.
Alderson, P., Farsides, B. and Williams, C. ( 2002). Examining ethics in practice: Health professionals’ evaluations of in-hospital ethics seminars. Journal of Nursing Ethics, 9(5), 508-21.
2.
Braude, P., Pickering, S., Flinter, F. and Ogalvie, C. ( 2002). Preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Nature Reviews Genetics, 3(12), 941-53.
3.
Casper, M.J. ( 1998). The making of the unborn patient: A social anatomy of fetal surgery. New Jersey: Rutgers University Press.
4.
Chambliss, D. ( 1996). Beyond caring: Hospitals, nurses and the social organisation of ethics. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
5.
Clarke, A.E. ( 2005). Situational analysis: Grounded theory after the postmodern turn. London: SAGE.
6.
De Vries, R. and Conrad, P. ( 1998). Why bioethics needs sociology. In R. DeVries and J. Subedi (Eds.), Bioethics and society, pp. 233-57. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
7.
Ehrich, K., Williams, C. and Farsides, B. ( 2008). The embryo as moral work object: PGD/IVF staff views and experiences. Sociology of Health & Illness, 30(5), 772-87.
8.
Ehrich, K., Farsides, B., Williams, C. and Scott, R. ( 2007a). Testing the embryo, testing the fetus. Clinical Ethics, 2(4), 181-6.
9.
Ehrich, K., Williams, C., Farsides, B., Sandall, J. and Scott, R. ( 2007b). Choosing embryos: Ethical complexity and relational autonomy in staff accounts of PGD. Sociology of Health & Illness, 29(7), 1-16.
10.
Ehrich, K., Williams, C., Scott, R., Sandall, J. and Farsides, B. ( 2006). Social welfare, genetic welfare? Boundary-work in the IVF/PGD clinic. Social Science and Medicine, 63(5), 1213-24.
11.
Foucault, M. ( 1980). Power/Knowledge. Brighton: Harvester.
12.
Franklin, S. and Roberts, C. ( 2006). Born and made: An ethnography of PGD. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
13.
Fujimura, J. ( 1992). Crafting science: Standardized packages, boundary objects and ‘translations’. In A. Pickering (Ed.), Science as practice and culture, pp. 168-211. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
14.
Grint, K. and Woolgar, S. ( 1997). The machine at work: Technology, work and organization . Cambridge: Polity Press.
15.
Haimes, E. ( 2002). What can the social sciences contribute to the study of ethics? Theoretical, empirical and substantive considerations. Bioethics, 16(2), 89-113.
16.
Haimes, E. and Luce, J. ( 2006). Studying potential donors’ views on embryonic stem cell therapies and preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Human Fertility, 9(2), 67-71.
17.
Hedgecoe, A. ( 2004). Critical bioethics: Beyond the social science critique of applied ethics. Bioethics, 18(2), 120-43.
18.
Kalfoglou, A.L., Scott, J. and Hudson, K. ( 2005). PGD patients’ and providers’ attitudes to the use and regulation of preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Reproductive Biomedicine Online, 11(4), 486-96.
19.
Krones, T. and Richter, G. ( 2004). Preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD): European perspectives and the German situation. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy , 29(5), 623-40.
20.
Krones, T., Schluter, E., Neuwohner, E., El Ansari, S., Wissner, T. and Richter, G. ( 2006). What is the preimplantation embryo?Social Science and Medicine, 63(1), 1-20.
21.
Lavery, S., Aurell, R., Turner, C., Castello, C., Veiga, A., Barri, P. and Winston, R. ( 2002). Preimplantation genetic diagnosis: Patients’ experiences and attitudes. Human Reproduction, 17(9), 2464-7.
22.
Lofland, J. and Lofland, L. ( 1984). Analysing social settings: A guide to qualitative observation and analysis. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth .
23.
Meister, U., Finck, C., Stobel-Richter, Y., Schmutzer, G. and Brahler, E. ( 2005). Knowledge and attitudes towards preimplantation genetic diagnosis in Germany. Human Reproduction, 20(1), 231-8.
24.
Quintavalle, J. ( 2006). Quoted on BBC News 24, 10 May, 12.28: Watchdog backs more embryo checks.
25.
Ritchie, J. and Spencer, L. ( 1994). Qualitative data analysis for applied policy research . In A. Bryman and R. Burgess (Eds.), Analysing qualitative data, pp. 173-94. London : Routledge.
26.
Roberts, C. and Franklin, S. ( 2004). Experiencing new forms of genetic choice: Findings from an ethnographic study of preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Human Fertility, 7(4), 285-93.
27.
Soini, S., Ibarreta, D., Anastasiadou, V., Aymé, S., Braga, S., Cornel, M. et al. (2006). The interface between medically assisted reproduction and genetics: Technical, social, ethical and legal issues. European Journal of Human Genetics, 14(April), 588-645.
28.
Star, S.L. and Griesemer, J. ( 1989). Institutional ecology, ‘translations’ and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39. Social Studies of Science, 19(3), 387-420.
29.
Thompson, C. ( 2005). Making parents: The ontological choreography of reproductive technologies. London: The MIT Press .
30.
Todd, A.D. ( 1989). Intimate adversaries: Cultural conflict between doctors and women patients. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
31.
Wainwright, S.P., Williams, C., Michael, M., Farsides, B. and Cribb, A. ( 2006). Ethical boundary-work in the embryonic stem cell laboratory . Sociology of Health & Illness, 28(6), 732-48.
32.
Watt, H. ( 2004). Preimplantation genetic diagnosis: Choosing the ‘good enough’ child. Health Care Analysis, 12(1), 51-60.
33.
Williams, C. ( 2005). Framing the fetus in medical work: Representations and practices. Social Science and Medicine, 60(9), 2085-95.
34.
Williams, C. ( 2006). Dilemmas in fetal medicine: Premature application of a technology or responding to women’s choice? Sociology of Health and Illness, 28(1), 1-20.
35.
Williams, C., Alderson, P. and Farsides, B. ( 2002a). ‘Drawing the line’ in prenatal screening and testing: Health practitioners’ discussions. Health, Risk & Society, 4(1), 61-75.
36.
Williams, C., Alderson, P. and Farsides, B. ( 2002b). Too many choices? Hospital and community staff reflect on the future of prenatal screening. Social Science and Medicine , 55(5), 743-53.
37.
Williams, C., Alderson, P. and Farsides, B. ( 2002c). Is nondirectiveness possible within the context of antenatal screening and testing? Social Science and Medicine, 54(3), 339-47.
38.
Williams, C., Ehrich, K., Farsides, B. and Scott, R. ( 2007). Facilitating choice, framing choice: Staff views on widening the scope of preimplantation genetic diagnosis in the UK. Social Science and Medicine, 65(6), 1094-105.
39.
Williams, C., Sandall, J., Lewando-Hundt, G., Heyman, B., Spencer, K. and Grellier, R. ( 2005). Woman as moral pioneers? Experiences of first trimester antenatal screening. Social Science and Medicine, 61(9), 1983-92.
40.
Zeiler, K. ( 2004). Reproductive autonomous choice: A cherished illusion? Reproductive autonomy examined in the context of PGD. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, 7(2), 175-83.
41.
Zussman, R. ( 2000). The contributions of sociology to medical ethics. Hastings Center Report, Jan/Feb, 7-11.
