References
- Paul DB Controlling Human Heredity. 1865 to the Present.Amherst, New York: Humanity Books;1995.
- Dodier N. Leçons politiques de l’épidémie de sida. Paris: EHESS;2003.
- Reubi D. The human capacity to reflect and decide: Bioethics and the
reconfiguration of the research subject in the British biomedical
sciences. Social Studies of Science 2012 42:348–368.
- Mol A. The logic of care: Health and the problem of patient choice.
New York: Routledge;2008
- National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence [NICE]. NICE
clinical guideline 62. Antenatal care: Routine care for the healthy
pregnant woman 2008.
- Vassy C. De l’innovation biomédicale à la pratique de masse: Le
dépistage prénatal de la trisomie 21 en Angleterre et en France.
Sciences Sociales et Santé 2011 29:5-32.
- Agence de la Biomédecine (2016). Centres pluridisciplinaires de
diagnostic prénatal 2015 [online]. Available at:
https://www.agence-biomedecine.fr/annexes/bilan2016/donnees/diag-prenat/01-diag_prenat/synthese.htm.
- National Health Service. Fetal Anomaly Screening Programme: Screening
standards data report 1 April 2016 to 31 March 2017 [online].
Available at:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/787093/Fetal_Anomaly_Screening_Programme_Standards_Data_Report_2016-17_.pdf
(Accessed: 29 September 2019).
- Getz L, Kirkengen AL. Ultrasound screening in pregnancy: Advancing
technology, soft markers for fetal chromosomal aberrations, and
unacknowledged ethical dilemmas. Social Science & Medicine 200356 :2045-2057.
- Akolekar R, Beta J, Picciarelli G, Ogilvie C, D’Antonio F.
Procedure‐related risk of miscarriage following amniocentesis and
chorionic villus sampling: A systematic review and meta‐analysis.
Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology 2015 45:16-26.
- Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Termination of
pregnancy for fetal abnormality in England, Scotland and Wales. Report
of a working party [online]; 2010. Available at:
https://www.rcog.org.uk/globalassets/documents/guidelines/terminationpregnancyreport18may2010.pdf.
(Accessed: 20 September 2018).
- Law n° 2011-814 of 7 July 2011 relating to bioethics (JORF n°0157 du 8
juillet 2011)
- Thomas G. An Elephant in the Consultation Room? Configuring Down
Syndrome in British Antenatal Care. Medical Anthropology Quarterly
2016 30:238–258.
- Garcia E, Timmermans DR, van Leeuwen E. The impact of ethical beliefs
on decisions about prenatal screening tests: Searching for
justification. Social Science & Medicine 2008 66:53–764.
- Ahmed S, Bryant LD, Tizro Z, Shickle D. Interpretations of informed
choice in antenatal screening: A cross-cultural, Q-methodology study.
Social Science & Medicine 2012 74:997-1004.
- Markens S, Browner CH, Preloran M. Interrogating the dynamics between
power, knowledge and pregnant bodies in amniocentesis decision making.
Sociology of Health & Illness 2010 32:37–56.
- Williams C, Alderson P, Farsides B. Is nondirectiveness possible
within the context of antenatal screening and testing? Social Science
& Medicine 2002 54:339–347.
- Schwennesen N, Svendsen MN, Koch L. Beyond informed choice: Prenatal
risk assessment, decision-making and trust. Clinical Ethics
2010 5:207-216.
- Clarke A. Is non-directive genetic counselling possible? The Lancet
1991 338:898-1001.
- Dormandy E, Marteau TM. Uptake of a prenatal screening test: The role
of healthcare professionals’ attitudes towards the test. Prenatal
Diagnosis 2004 24:864-868.
- Rapp R. Testing the women, testing the fetus. The social impact of
amniocentesis in America. New York: Routledge;2000.
- Wild K, Maypilama EL, Kildea S, Boyle J, Barclay L., Rumbold A. ‘Give
us the full story’: Overcoming the challenges to achieving informed
choice about fetal anomaly screening in Australian Aboriginal
communities. Social Science & Medicine 2013 98:351-360.
- Hunt LM, Castaneda H, de Voogd K. Do notions of risk inform patient
choice? Lessons from a study of prenatal genetic counselling. Medical
Anthropology 2006 25:193–219.
- Schwennesen N, Koch L. Representing and intervening: ‘Doing’ good care
in first trimester prenatal knowledge production and decision-making.
Sociology of Health and Illness 2012 34:283–298.
- Goffman E. Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press;1974.
- Corbin J, Strauss A. Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and
procedures for developing Grounded Theory. London: Sage
Publication;1998.
- Austin JL How to do Things with Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press;1962.
- Dodier N, Motlow D. The conventional foundations of action. Elements
of a sociological pragmatics. Réseaux. The French Journal of
Communication 1995 3:145-166.
- Quill TE, Cassel CK. Nonabandonment: A central obligation of
physicians. Annuals of Internal Medicine 1995 122:368-374.
- Dodier N. Expert medical decisions in occupational medicine: a
sociological analysis of medical judgment. Sociology of Health and
Illness 1994 16:489-514.
- Clarke A. The evolving concept of non-directiveness in genetic
counselling. In Petermann HI, Harper PS, Doetz S (eds) History of
Human Genetics. Aspects of Its Development and Global Perspectives.
Cham, Switzerland: Springer;2017:541-566.
- Scott A, Le Galès P. A British bureaucratic revolution? Autonomy
without control or “Freer actors more rules”. English Annual
selection, Revue Française de Sociologie 2010 51:119-146.
- Ville I. Prenatal diagnosis in France: Between regulation of practices
and professional autonomy. Medical History 2019 3:209-229.
.