Guardians of ableist family formation: the legitimation work of Danish abortion committees in cases of termination for fetal anomaly

IF 1.3 4区 医学 Q4 SOCIAL SCIENCES, BIOMEDICAL Biosocieties Pub Date : 2024-03-16 DOI:10.1057/s41292-023-00319-6
{"title":"Guardians of ableist family formation: the legitimation work of Danish abortion committees in cases of termination for fetal anomaly","authors":"","doi":"10.1057/s41292-023-00319-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<h3>Abstract</h3> <p>In Denmark, pregnant persons have a statutory right to abortion on-demand in the first trimester of pregnancy, after which abortion must be sanctioned by a regional abortion committee and may be warranted if there is danger that the fetus will suffer a serious mental or physical disability, yet what precisely constitutes ‘danger’ and ‘seriousness’ are left in the hands of the juridical abortion system to interpret. In this article, I explore how jurists and doctors arrive at and legitimate the authorization of disability-selective abortion. Building on van Wichelen’s (Legitimating life: adoption in the age of globalization and biotechnology, Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, 2019) concept of ‘legitimation work,’ I show how abortion committees make legal decisions by dividing and distributing the task of —and moral responsibility for—making life-ending decisions by leaning on established legal practice, what I refer to as <em>bureaucratic legitimation work</em>; risk estimates made by external medical experts, what I refer to as <em>collaborative legitimation work</em>; and the ethical panacea of individual autonomy and informed choice, what I refer to as <em>ethopolitical legitimation work</em>. I argue that in conjunction, these forms of legitimation work turn termination of almost every non-conforming fetus into legitimate acts, hereby safeguarding ableist family formation. </p>","PeriodicalId":46976,"journal":{"name":"Biosocieties","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Biosocieties","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1057/s41292-023-00319-6","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, BIOMEDICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In Denmark, pregnant persons have a statutory right to abortion on-demand in the first trimester of pregnancy, after which abortion must be sanctioned by a regional abortion committee and may be warranted if there is danger that the fetus will suffer a serious mental or physical disability, yet what precisely constitutes ‘danger’ and ‘seriousness’ are left in the hands of the juridical abortion system to interpret. In this article, I explore how jurists and doctors arrive at and legitimate the authorization of disability-selective abortion. Building on van Wichelen’s (Legitimating life: adoption in the age of globalization and biotechnology, Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, 2019) concept of ‘legitimation work,’ I show how abortion committees make legal decisions by dividing and distributing the task of —and moral responsibility for—making life-ending decisions by leaning on established legal practice, what I refer to as bureaucratic legitimation work; risk estimates made by external medical experts, what I refer to as collaborative legitimation work; and the ethical panacea of individual autonomy and informed choice, what I refer to as ethopolitical legitimation work. I argue that in conjunction, these forms of legitimation work turn termination of almost every non-conforming fetus into legitimate acts, hereby safeguarding ableist family formation.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
健全家庭组成的守护者:丹麦堕胎委员会在因胎儿异常而终止妊娠的案例中的合法化工作
摘要 在丹麦,孕妇在妊娠头三个月内享有按需堕胎的法定权利,此后的堕胎必须得到地区堕胎委员会的批准,如果存在胎儿将遭受严重精神或身体残疾的危险,则可以进行堕胎,但 "危险 "和 "严重性 "的确切含义却由堕胎司法系统来解释。在本文中,我将探讨法学家和医生是如何达成残疾选择性堕胎的授权并使之合法化的。本文以 van Wichelen 的《全球化和收养时代的收养》(Legitimating life:全球化和生物技术时代的收养》,罗格斯大学出版社,新不伦瑞克,2019 年)的 "合法化工作 "概念为基础,我展示了堕胎委员会是如何通过划分和分配作出终结生命决定的任务--以及道德责任--来做出法律决定的,这就是我所说的官僚合法化工作;由外部医学专家做出的风险评估,即我所说的合作合法化工作;以及个人自主和知情选择的伦理灵丹妙药,即我所说的伦理政治合法化工作。我认为,这些形式的合法化工作结合在一起,将终止几乎所有不符合要求的胎儿的行为变成了合法行为,从而保障了能动主义家庭的形成。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Biosocieties
Biosocieties SOCIAL SCIENCES, BIOMEDICAL-
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
6.20%
发文量
23
期刊介绍: BioSocieties is committed to the scholarly exploration of the crucial social, ethical and policy implications of developments in the life sciences and biomedicine. These developments are increasing our ability to control our own biology; enabling us to create novel life forms; changing our ideas of ‘normality’ and ‘abnormality’; transforming our understanding of personal identity, family relations, ancestry and ‘race’; altering our social and personal expectations and responsibilities; reshaping global economic opportunities and inequalities; creating new global security challenges; and generating new social, ethical, legal and regulatory dilemmas. To address these dilemmas requires us to break out from narrow disciplinary boundaries within the social sciences and humanities, and between these disciplines and the natural sciences, and to develop new ways of thinking about the relations between biology and sociality and between the life sciences and society. BioSocieties provides a crucial forum where the most rigorous social research and critical analysis of these issues can intersect with the work of leading scientists, social researchers, clinicians, regulators and other stakeholders. BioSocieties defines the key intellectual issues at the science-society interface, and offers pathways to the resolution of the critical local, national and global socio-political challenges that arise from scientific and biomedical advances. As the first journal of its kind, BioSocieties publishes scholarship across the social science disciplines, and represents a lively and balanced array of perspectives on controversial issues. In its inaugural year BioSocieties demonstrated the constructive potential of interdisciplinary dialogue and debate across the social and natural sciences. We are becoming the journal of choice not only for social scientists, but also for life scientists interested in the larger social, ethical and policy implications of their work. The journal is international in scope, spanning research and developments in all corners of the globe. BioSocieties is published quarterly, with occasional themed issues that highlight some of the critical questions and problematics of modern biotechnologies. Articles, response pieces, review essays, and self-standing editorial pieces by social and life scientists form a regular part of the journal.
期刊最新文献
‘Our biology is listening’: biomarkers as molecular vestiges of early life and the production of positive childhood experiences in behavioral epigenetics Anticipating and suspending: the chronopolitics of cryopreservation From brain “scar” to “bat shit crazy”: negotiating the madness of sexual violence discourse What is the cure for absolute infertility? Biomedicalisation and routinisation of surrogacy and uterus transplantation in Nordic medical journals The politics of suspension suspended: the curious case of a cryopreserved cell product
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1