Beyond ‘the choice to drink’ in a UK guideline on FASD: the precautionary principle, pregnancy surveillance, and the managed woman

IF 1.8 4区 医学 Q3 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH Health Risk & Society Pub Date : 2021-11-10 DOI:10.1080/13698575.2021.1998389
Ellie Lee, J. Bristow, Rachel Arkell, C. Murphy
{"title":"Beyond ‘the choice to drink’ in a UK guideline on FASD: the precautionary principle, pregnancy surveillance, and the managed woman","authors":"Ellie Lee, J. Bristow, Rachel Arkell, C. Murphy","doi":"10.1080/13698575.2021.1998389","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In many countries, official guidance promotes alcohol abstinence to women during, and also before, pregnancy, on the basis of concern about Foetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder (FASD). Guidance has moved away from reference to a ‘choice to drink’, claiming absence of evidence about safety of even ‘low level’ drinking as a justification. Scholarship drawing on sociologies of risk and uncertainty has drawn attention to problems with precautionary thinking in this area of policy making, including for women’s autonomy. We build on these insights to assess a more recent type of UK guidance. This is directed not to women advising them to abstain, but instead it is about women, and tasks health professionals with managing the risk pregnant women’s behaviour is deemed to present. Using qualitative discourse analysis, we assess one such example, developed in Scotland, called SIGN 156. We contextualise SIGN 156 first through discussion of the relevant literature, making particular use of Ruhl’s considerations of the meaning of risk and the social conditioning of choice, and second through an account of developments in UK Government advice in recent years. We show that SIGN 156 builds on a policy context where a precautionary approach is explicit, but we furthermore detail how this approach innovates the guidance and practice field. SIGN 156 expands the meaning of risk and uncertainty and so justifies ‘routine’ monitoring and screening, generating the case for an expanded form of surveillance of pregnant women. We conclude with a critical commentary on the implications of this case for analyses of risk and uncertainty, and power.","PeriodicalId":47341,"journal":{"name":"Health Risk & Society","volume":"5 1","pages":"17 - 35"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2021-11-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Risk & Society","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13698575.2021.1998389","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

Abstract

In many countries, official guidance promotes alcohol abstinence to women during, and also before, pregnancy, on the basis of concern about Foetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder (FASD). Guidance has moved away from reference to a ‘choice to drink’, claiming absence of evidence about safety of even ‘low level’ drinking as a justification. Scholarship drawing on sociologies of risk and uncertainty has drawn attention to problems with precautionary thinking in this area of policy making, including for women’s autonomy. We build on these insights to assess a more recent type of UK guidance. This is directed not to women advising them to abstain, but instead it is about women, and tasks health professionals with managing the risk pregnant women’s behaviour is deemed to present. Using qualitative discourse analysis, we assess one such example, developed in Scotland, called SIGN 156. We contextualise SIGN 156 first through discussion of the relevant literature, making particular use of Ruhl’s considerations of the meaning of risk and the social conditioning of choice, and second through an account of developments in UK Government advice in recent years. We show that SIGN 156 builds on a policy context where a precautionary approach is explicit, but we furthermore detail how this approach innovates the guidance and practice field. SIGN 156 expands the meaning of risk and uncertainty and so justifies ‘routine’ monitoring and screening, generating the case for an expanded form of surveillance of pregnant women. We conclude with a critical commentary on the implications of this case for analyses of risk and uncertainty, and power.
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
在英国FASD指南中,除了“饮酒的选择”之外:预防原则、妊娠监测和管理女性
在许多国家,基于对胎儿酒精谱系障碍(FASD)的关注,官方指导鼓励妇女在怀孕期间和怀孕前戒酒。指南不再提及“选择饮酒”,而是声称缺乏证据证明即使是“低水平”饮酒的安全性。利用风险和不确定性社会学的学术研究提请人们注意这一决策领域的预防性思维问题,包括妇女自主问题。我们在这些见解的基础上,评估了一种最新的英国指南。这不是针对建议她们戒酒的妇女,而是针对妇女,并责成卫生专业人员管理孕妇行为被认为会带来的风险。使用定性话语分析,我们评估了一个这样的例子,在苏格兰开发,称为SIGN 156。我们首先通过对相关文献的讨论,特别是利用鲁尔对风险含义和选择的社会条件的考虑,将SIGN 156纳入背景,其次通过对近年来英国政府建议发展的描述。我们表明SIGN 156建立在明确采取预防措施的政策背景之上,但我们进一步详细说明了这种方法如何创新指导和实践领域。SIGN 156扩大了风险和不确定性的含义,因此为“常规”监测和筛查提供了理由,为扩大对孕妇的监测形式提供了理由。最后,我们对该案例对风险、不确定性和权力分析的影响进行了批判性评论。
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
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
14.30%
发文量
23
期刊介绍: Health Risk & Society is an international scholarly journal devoted to a theoretical and empirical understanding of the social processes which influence the ways in which health risks are taken, communicated, assessed and managed. Public awareness of risk is associated with the development of high profile media debates about specific risks. Although risk issues arise in a variety of areas, such as technological usage and the environment, they are particularly evident in health. Not only is health a major issue of personal and collective concern, but failure to effectively assess and manage risk is likely to result in health problems.
期刊最新文献
Risk factors for mental health and wellness: children’s perspectives from five Majority World Countries The role of trust in government and risk perception in adherence to COVID-19 prevention measures: survey findings among young people in Luxembourg Reassessing social trust: gossip, self-policing, and Covid-19 risk communication in Norway Organisational learning, or organised irresponsibility? Risk, opacity and lesson learning about mental health related deaths The “risk object” of cannabis edibles: perspectives from young adults in Canada
×
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