On Talking Together about Ordinary Abortion

The scarlet “A” that the protagonist of Nathaniel Hawthorne's seventeenth‐century novel is forced to pin to her dress symbolizes the shame and social disgrace that she endures for conceiving a child out of adultery. In Scarlet A: The Ethics, Law, & Politics of Ordinary Abortion, Katie Watson argues that abortion is our era's scarlet letter: a mark of stigma that is invisible yet no less shameful, causing unnecessary cultural silences around what is a remarkably common practice. In this brilliant new book, Watson draws on legal proceedings, bioethics literature, and personal experience; offers cultural and literary analysis; and uses her unique vantage point as a lawyer, bioethicist, and medical educator to develop a thought‐provoking and thoroughly fresh perspective on one of the most divisive moral issues of our time.     

The Implications of Genetic and Other Biological Explanations for Thinking about Mental Disorders

Given the rise of genetic etiological beliefs regarding psychiatric disorders, a growing body of research has focused on trying to elucidate the effects that such explanatory frameworks might be having on how mental disorders are perceived by patients, clinicians, and the general public. Genetic and other biomedical explanations of mental disorders have long been seen as a potential tool in the efforts to destigmatize mental disorders, given the harshness of the widespread negative attitudes about them and the important negative clinical and social impacts of this stigma. The conventional wisdom has appeared to be that because the effects of genes are seen as falling outside individual control, conceiving of mental disorders as caused by genes casts patients as blameless, thereby reducing stigmatization. Indeed, the results of experimental and correlational research have now robustly linked genetic and other biomedical explanations for mental disorders with reductions in the extent to which people are blamed for their psychiatric symptoms. However, research examining the impact of genetic and other biomedical explanations of mental disorders has also suggested that they can have significant downsides. The most consistently observed negative effect of these kinds of explanations is that they can apparently lead to the assumption that mental disorders are unlikely to improve or abate. Genetic and other biomedical explanations of mental disorders can also increase people’s confidence in the effectiveness of biomedical treatments (such as pharmacotherapy) but decrease their confidence in the effectiveness of “nonbiomedical” treatments (such as psychotherapy).     

Information Curation among Vaccine Cautious Parents: Web 2.0, Pinterest Thinking,and Pediatric Vaccination Choice

To learn about pediatric vaccine decision-making, we surveyed and interviewed US parents with at least one child kindergarten age or younger (N = 53). Through an anthropologically informed content analysis, we found that fully vaccinating parents (n = 33) mostly saw vaccination as routine. In contrast, selective and nonvaccinating parents (n = 20) exhibited the type of self-informed engagement that the health care system recommends. Selective vaccinators also expressed multiple, sometimes contradictory positions on vaccination that were keyed to individual children’s biologies, child size, environmental hazards, specific diseases, and discrete vaccines. Rather than logical progressions, viewpoints were presented as assembled collections, reflecting contemporary information filtering and curation practices and the prevalence of collectively experienced and constructed digital “hive” narratives. Findings confirm the need for a noncategorical approach to intervention that accommodates the fluid, polyvalent nature of vaccine reasoning and the curatorial view selectively vaccinating parents take toward information while honoring their efforts at engaged healthcare consumption.