Should genetic health care providers attempt to influence reproductive outcome using directive counseling techniques? A public health prospective.

Many areas of agreement exist among genetic health care (GHC) professionals (i.e., MD and PhD clinical geneticists, master's level genetic counselors, and others) and public health (PH) professionals. However, there are in our opinion at least two areas or tenets where a distinct difference of opinion exists. Two tenets widely expressed by prenatal GHC professionals are: (1) they should never attempt to influence the outcome of a pregnancy, and (2) they should only use non-directive genetic counseling techniques. From a PH perspective, these tenets could be viewed in some instances as counterproductive and contrary to a major goal of PH (i.e., to improve the health and well-being of all residents, including newborns). For example, PH's message regarding fetal alcohol syndrome (FAS) prevention is clear: If you are pregnant, don't drink; and if you drink, don't get pregnant. PH's message regarding neural tube defect (NTD) prevention is equally clear: all women of childbearing age who are capable of becoming pregnant should consume 0.4 mg of folic acid daily to reduce the risk of NTDs. In the past, issues such as eugenics, abortion of affected fetuses, and a lack of methods for the primary prevention of birth defects and genetic disorders have caused GHC providers to perform genetic counseling according to the two tenets mentioned above. Clearly, there are no moral or ethical reasons why children who are at risk for FAS, NTDs, fetal rubella syndrome, or many other conditions should not have the opportunity to be born healthy. Also, we know of no laws that prohibit providers from telling a woman to do something to improve her baby's chance of being born healthy. In our opinion, it is time for prenatal GHC professionals to re-examine the two tenets noted above on a case-by-case basis to determine when it is appropriate to use directive counseling techniques to improve reproductive outcomes in accordance with the goals of PH. A framework is provided here that could serve as: (1) a guide for future discussions dealing with these issues, and (2) a method to ensure that prenatal GHC policy and practice regarding these issues conform with one another.

Why can't a woman be more like a man? A renaissance perspective on the biological basis for female inferiority.

Western biomedical theory supported the idea of human female inferiority. The Aristotelian formulation was: Nature intends to produce the perfect male form with external genitalia; the female with internal genitalia is less than perfect and thus a defect of nature. In the Renaissance, peripubertal virilization in females was interpreted as further evidence that females were "defective" males capable of developing into the more perfect male form.

Of monsters and prodigies: the interpretation of birth defects in the sixteenth century.

In the sixteenth century, a time of religious and social upheaval, naturalistic theories of generation were joined to ideas that monstrous births were divine signs. In this paper, we explore how medicine and theology were combined to explain the almost cataclysmic religious, social, and political events of the century.