References
- Beauchamp, T and Childress, J. (1994) Principles of Biomedical Ethics (4th Edn) Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Beck, U. (1992) Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity London: Sage Publications.
- Corrigan, O. (2003) ‘Empty ethics: the problem with informed consent’ Sociology of Health and Illness 25(3):768–792.
- Ettore, E. (1999) ‘Experts as storytellers in reproductive genetics: exploring key issues’ Sociology of Health and Illness 21: 539–559.
- Ettore, E (2002) Reproductive Genetics, Gender and the Body London: Routledge.
- Giddens, A. (1991) Modernity and Self-Identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age California: Stanford University Press.
- Lippman, A. (1994) ‘The genetic construction of prenatal testing: choice, consent or conformity forwomen?’ in K.H. Rothman and E.J. Thomson (eds) Women and Prenatal Testing: Facing the Challenges of Genetic Technology, pp 9–33. Columbus OH: Ohio State University Press.
- Lippman, A. (1999) ‘Choice as a risk to women’s health’ Risk and Society 1 (3): 281–292.
- Lupton, D. (1999) ‘Risk and the ontology of pregnant embodiment’ in D. Lupton (ed.) Risk and Sociocultural Theory: New Directions and Perspectives Cambridge: Cambridge Press.
- New Zealand Herald, 17/09/05 Rise in Down Syndrome Babies Blamed on Lack of Screening Auckland: APN Holdings NZ, Ltd.
- Nicolaides, K.H, Spencer, K, Avgidou, K, Faiola, S and Falcon, O. (2005) ‘Multicenter study of first trimester screening for trisomy 21 in 75 821 pregnancies: results and estimation of the potential impacts of individual risk-orientated two-stage first-trimester screening’ Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynaecology (25)3: 221–266.
- Petersen, A and Lupton, D. (1996) The New Public Health: Health and Self in the Age of Risk St. Leonards NSW: Allen & Unwin.
- Press, N and Browner, C.H. (1995) ‘Risk, autonomy and responsibility: informed consent for prenatal testing’ Hastings Center Report 25(3): S9–S12.
- Press, N. and Browner, C.H. (1997) ‘Why Women say yes to prenatal diagnosis’ Social Science and Medicine 45: 979–989.
- Rapp, R. (1988) ‘Moral pioneers: women, men and fetuses on a frontier of reproductive technology’ Women and Health 13: 101–116.
- Rapp, R. (1998) ‘Refusing prenatal diagnosis: the meanings of bioscience in a multicultural world’ Science, Technology and Human Values 23(1): 45–70.
- Scott, S. Prior, L. Wood, F and Gray, J. (2005) ‘Repositioning the patient: the implication of being “at risk”’ Social Science and Medicine 60(8):1869–79.
- Shildrick, M. (1997) Leaky Bodies and Boundaries: Feminism, Postmodernism and (Bio)ethics. London, New York: Routledge.
- Shildrick, M. (2004) ‘Genetics, normativity, and ethics’ Feminist Theory 5(2):149–165.
- Shildrick, M and Price, J. (eds) (1998) Vital Signs: Feminist Reconfigurations of the Bio/Logical Body Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
- Stone, P. (2006) Report to the National Screening Unit: Assessment of Antenatal Screening for Down Syndrome in New Zealand Auckland: UniServices Ltd.
- Williams, C. Alderson, P. and Farsides, B. (2002) ‘Too many choices? Hospital and community staff reflect on the future of prenatal screening’ Social Science and Medicine 55(5): 743–753.
- Williams, C. Sandall, J. Lewando-Hundt, G et al. (2005) ‘Women as moral pioneers? Experiences of first trimester antenatal screening’ Social Science and Medicine 61(9):1983–1992.
- World Health Organisation (2006) Policy Document on Genomics. Retrieved July 2006._http://www.who.int/genomics/policy/newzealand
- Young, I.M. (2005) ‘Pregnant embodiment’ in On Female Body Experience – Throwing Like a Girl and Other Essays pp 46–61. New York: Oxford University Press.