Unrighteous Ambiguity: Reproductive Technology and navigations of maternal, fetal, infant and paternal personhood

• In Event: Personhood, Law, and Relationality Amidst the New Biosciences II

Abstract

Based on ethnographic fieldwork undertaken in an Australian public hospital maternity unit, this paper presents four case studies to illustrate complex and contested articulations of personhood evident in biomedicalised birthing environments. (1) In Australia, legal personhood is granted to a fetus at 20 weeks: if a pregnancy terminates prior to that it is regarded as a miscarriage/abortion, while a pregnancy terminated at 20 weeks gestation is regarded as a stillbirth, requiring a death certificate. It is not uncommon for the termination of a pregnancy on genetic grounds to take place after 20 weeks, requiring the active killing of a ‘person’. (2) Down Syndrome is the iconic genetic condition in which discussions of genetic terminations are frequently framed, and one of the most common conditions to trigger a genetic termination. Obstetricians and GPs, whose careers and identities are predicated on their intelligence, are key actors in advising a woman or couple when a test result is received that reads positive to Down Syndrome, for which the most commonly understood ‘symptom’ is ‘low intelligence’. (3) From this study, evidence strongly suggests that paternal reproductive opportunity dominates over maternal health in some considerations of planned hysterectomies. (4) There is evidence to suggest that ‘undiagnosed pregnancies’, which often lead to copybook ‘natural’ or ‘active’ birth outcomes, are subject to unusual levels of postnatal intervention.

I suggest that what draws these four examples together are underlying moral epistemologies about righteous personhood which permeate decision making and care delivery in biomedicalised maternity environments.

Author

• Debbi Long, RMIT University, Melbourne