Collective fear, individualized risk: the social and cultural context of genetic testing for breast cancer.

Stanford University Center of Biomedical Ethics, Palo Alto, CA 94304, USA.
Nursing Ethics (Impact Factor: 1.09). 06/2000; 7(3):237-49. DOI: 10.1177/096973300000700306
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The purpose of this article is to provide a critical examination of two aspects of culture and biomedicine that have helped to shape the meaning and practice of genetic testing for breast cancer. These are: (1) the cultural construction of fear of breast cancer, which has been fuelled in part by (2) the predominance of a 'risk' paradigm in contemporary biomedicine. The increasing elaboration and delineation of risk factors and risk numbers are in part intended to help women to contend with their fear of breast cancer. However, because there is no known cure or foolproof prevention for breast cancer, risk designations bring with them recommendations for vigilant surveillance strategies and screening guidelines. We argue that these in effect exacerbate women's fears of breast cancer itself. The volatile combination of discourses of fear, risk and surveillance have significant ethical and social consequences for women's lives and well-being. Genetic testing decisions are made within this context; if nurses understand this context they can play an important role in helping women to cope with the anxiety and fear of breast cancer risk.

1 Bookmark
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The relationship among genetic technologies, biosocial identity and patient subjectivity has been the focus of an increasing range of social science literature. Examining mainly European and North American contexts this work has demonstrated the variable configurations of genetic knowledge-practices and the diverse implications for at-risk individuals and populations. This article brings together ethnographic research on genomic medicine, public health and breast cancer in Cuba, Greece and Germany. Although each case study addresses different publics/patients, institutional settings and risk-related practices, they all critically examine ‘neoliberal’ subjectivity and BRCA patienthood, at the intersection of political rationalities, medical discourses, social conditions and moral codes. In the Cuban case, cultural articulations of inherited and other embodied risks relating to breast cancer are analysed in relation to state provision of ‘community genetics’, and the shifting dynamics of public health in response to global social processes. The Greek case explores how culturally embedded values, notions of inherited risk and care inform or are re-articulated through institutional practices and ambivalent subject positions, at the meeting point between individualised medicine, religious philanthropy and the particularities of public health. In the German context, diverging patient subjectivities are examined against the background of prevailing social discourses and institutionalised risk management practices that promote proactive individuality. Drawing on deconstructive and feminist analyses, these case studies reveal how normative ‘neoliberal’ patient subjects are only ‘partially reproduced’ in situated contexts, neither stable nor homogeneous, as different actors and publics variously articulate, embrace or engage with transnational as well as culturally embedded discourses and health practices.
    BioSocieties 12/2010; 5(4). · 1.26 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In recent years, epidemiologists have conducted dozens of surveys asking men around the world if they would be willing to be circumcised to reduce their HIV-risk. Men’s responses in turn constitute an important factor in predicting the overall success of circumcision campaigns. Whereas researchers often position survey responses as passive reflections of attitudes, my analysis reveals a more complex picture. The reviewed surveys invite men to consider a part of their bodies as posing a risk to themselves, their partners or their communities, and its removal as a means to permanently transition from the ‘high’ to the ‘low’ risk category. In the process, they position some bodies as inherently riskier than others, thereby carving out new HIV-risk subject positions based not on identity or behavior, but the body itself. Because claims about what one can do to mitigate the spread of HIV are not easily disentangled from what one ought to do, I suggest that these surveys simultaneously imbue willingness to be circumcised with a sense of ethical obligation. In doing so, I argue that circumcision-willingness surveys constitute a discursive technology integral to male circumcision’s emergence as an HIV-risk reduction strategy, not simply a tool that identifies willing subjects passively awaiting the next public health intervention.
    BioSocieties 09/2013; 8(3). · 1.26 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Living in modern biopolitical risk culture might be seen as synonymous with living in prognosis time, in the sense that risk of illness is endlessly forecast (prognosticated) in the broad social arena. 'Safety,' in this context, is framed as the anticipatory guarding against risk or disease in order to 'make live.' Thinking of risk and safety in these ways is limited, however, in that the prognosis cannot account for the individual's life or death drama. This paper asks: how are we to understand the constellation of risk, prognosis, and safety in relation to 'the subject in breast cancer prognosis'?
    Journal of Medical Humanities 06/2014;