Fetal Ultrasound Imaging and the Production of Authoritative Knowledge in Greece

Abstract

In Greece repetitive and intensive fetal scanning is now a universal feature of prenatal care. This article examines some of the ways in which pregnant women and obstetricians experience the intensive use of fetal ultrasound in a small city in eastern Greece. Based on observations and interviews conducted in a public hospital, it is argued that fetal imaging plays a privileged role in the production of authoritative knowledge around pregnancy for both doctors and women. The authority of the technology rests primarily on its ability to create a straightforward sense of reality and visual pleasure. These qualities lead women to actively demand fetal scanning, which helps them to feel the reality of their pregnancies, reassures them of fetal health, and provides a pleasurable sense of contact with, and knowledge about, the fetus. Doctors freely offer multiple scans to attract women to the public hospital, to practice "modern" obstetrics, and to negotiate among themselves for control over the management of pregnant women.

Decision-making after ultrasound diagnosis of fetal abnormality

“…In fact, fetal ultrasound is highly appreciated by pregnant women and their partners [19,[25][26][27]. Most women consider ultrasound examinations as an integral part of antenatal care [26].…”

“…Most women consider ultrasound examinations as an integral part of antenatal care [26]. However, frequently, women lack information about the purpose of ultrasound examinations and its technical limitations.…”

Surrogate Losses:

“…Monitoring techniques work to highlight the fetal subject by virtue of both presenting and diagnosing the “baby” and also by providing scientific information and visual images about the “person” inside the woman (Balsamo 1999; Georges 1997; Hartouni 1999; Layne 2003; Mitchell 2001; Taylor 2004, 2008). Ultrasound images and the sound of heartbeat play important roles in the construction of the fetal subject and are routinely part of surrogate pregnancies.…”

Introduction

“…In contrast, because of anthropology's traditions, anthropological studies of technoscience tend to begin with a focus on the lay public, whether they be members of pregnancy loss support groups (Layne 1996b(Layne , 1997, amniocentesis users (Rapp 1997) or refusers (Rapp, 1998 [this volume]), users of sonograms (Taylor 1992(Taylor , 1993Georges 1996;Mitchell and Georges 1997;Rapp 1995), cancer patients (Woodell and Hess 1998), members of communities with elevated cancer rates (Balshem 1993), antinuclear organizations (Downey 1986a(Downey , 1986b, residential utility bill recipients (Kempton and Layne 1994), ordinary people's understandings of global climate change (Kempton, Boster, and Hartley 1996), members of AIDS organizations (Martin 1994), inhabitants of urban neighborhoods (Martin 1994), toxically insulted communities in the United States (Layne 1997b), environmental and health activists in India (Laughlin 1995), commercial fishers (Weeks 1997), creationists (Toumey 1994), women who give birth in hospitals or at home (Davis-Floyd 1992; Davis-Floyd and Sargent 1996), or other &dquo;low-tech cyborgs&dquo; (Hess 1995a). Indeed, one of the important anthropological contributions to STS has been to study the ways laypeople creatively make and remake technoscientific knowledge, the ways technoscientific practices are accepted or rejected, and how they shape the lived experience of differently situated actors (Hess and Layne 1992).…”