Journal of Bioethical Inquiry

, Volume 9, Issue 1, pp 41–47 | Cite as

“Good Mothering” or “Good Citizenship”?

Conflicting Values in Choosing Whether to Donate or Store Umbilical Cord Blood
  • Maree Porter
  • Ian H. Kerridge
  • Christopher F. C. Jordens
Symposium
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

Umbilical cord blood banking is one of many biomedical innovations that confront pregnant women with new choices about what they should do to secure their own and their child’s best interests. Many mothers can now choose to donate their baby’s umbilical cord blood (UCB) to a public cord blood bank or pay to store it in a private cord blood bank. Donation to a public bank is widely regarded as an altruistic act of civic responsibility. Paying to store UCB may be regarded as a “unique opportunity” to provide “insurance” for the child’s future. This paper reports findings from a survey of Australian women that investigated the decision to either donate or store UCB. We conclude that mothers are faced with competing discourses that force them to choose between being a “good mother” and fulfilling their role as a “good citizen.” We discuss this finding with reference to the concept of value pluralism.

Keywords

Mothers Umbilical cord Tissue banks Social values Capitalism Australia Bioethics Public health Stem cells and cloning 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors disclose receipt of the following financial support for the research and/or authorship of this article: the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC Project Grant number 512416). The authors would like to thank the contribution of researcher Michelle O’Connor for her work on data collection, analysis and editorial assistance.

References

  1. Annas, G.J. 1999. Waste and longing—the legal status of placental-blood banking. New England Journal of Medicine 340(19): 1521–1524.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Armson, B.A. 2005. Umbilical cord blood banking: Implications for perinatal care providers. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada 27(3): 263–290.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Beal, R.W., and W.G. van Aken. 1992. Gift or good? A contemporary examination of the voluntary and commercial aspects of blood donation. Vox Sanguinis 63(1): 1–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berlin, I. 1969. Four essays on liberty. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bordet, S., L. Kharaboyan, and A. Lebrun. 2007. Umbilical cord blood banking. GenEdit 5(1): 1–7.Google Scholar
  6. Bryant, J., M. Porter, S.K. Tracy, and E.A. Sullivan. 2007. Caesarean birth: Consumption, safety, order, and good mothering. Social Science & Medicine 65(6): 1192–1201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chapman, K., and J. Ogden. 2009. A qualitative study exploring how mothers manage their teenage children’s diets. Vulnerable Children and Youth Studies 4(1): 90–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. de Beauvoir, S. 1976. In The second sex, ed. H.M. Parshley. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
  9. DePaul, M.R. 2001. Balance and refinement: Beyond coherence methods of moral inquiry. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. Gallie, W.B. 1955. Essentially contested concepts. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 56: 167–198.Google Scholar
  11. Gill, M.B., and S. Nichols. 2008. Sentimentalist pluralism: Moral psychology and philosophy ethics. Philosophical Issues 18(1): 143–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gillespie, R. 2000. When no means no: Disbelief, disregard and deviance as discourses of voluntary childlessness. Women’s Studies International Forum 23(2): 223–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gluckman, E., A. Ruggeri, F. Volt, R. Cunha, K. Boudjedir, and V. Rocha. 2011. Milestones in umbilical cord blood transplantation. British Journal of Haematology 154(4): 441–447.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hausman, B.L. 2008. Women’s liberation and the rhetoric of “choice” in infant feeding debates. International Breastfeeding Journal 3(1): 10. doi: 10.1186/1746-4358-3-1.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Johnston, D.D., and D.H. Swanson. 2006. Constructing the “good mother”: The experience of mothering ideologies by work status. Sex Roles 54(7): 509–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kahu, E., and M. Morgan. 2007. Weaving cohesive identities: New Zealand women talk as mothers and workers. Kotuitui: New Zealand Journal of Social Sciences Online 2(2): 55–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kukla, R. 2008. Measuring mothering. The International Journal of Feminist Approaches to Bioethics 1(1): 67–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kurtzberg, J., A.D. Lyerly, and J. Sugarman. 2005. Untying the Gordian knot: Policies, practices, and ethical issues related to banking of umbilical cord blood. The Journal of Clinical Investigation 115(10): 2592–2597.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kymlicka, W., and W. Norman. 1994. Return of the citizen: A survey of recent work on citizenship theory. Ethics 104(2): 352–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. MacColl, M.-R. 2009. The birth wars: The conflict putting Australian women and babies at risk. Brisbane: University of Queensland Press.Google Scholar
  21. Manegold, G., S. Meyer-Monard, A. Tichelli, C. Granado, I. Hösli, and C. Troeger. 2011. Controversies in hybrid banking: attitudes of Swiss public umbilical cord blood donors toward private and public banking. Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics 284(1): 99–104.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Nagel, T. 1979. Mortal questions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  23. O’Brien, T.A., K. Tiedemann, and M.R. Vowels. 2006. No longer a biological waste product: Umbilical cord blood. Medical journal of Australia 184(8): 407–410.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Raz, J. 1999. Engaging reason: On the theory of value and action. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Rørtveit, K., S. Åström, and E. Severinsson. 2009. Experiences of guilt as a mother in the context of eating difficulties. Issues in Mental Health Nursing 30(10): 603–610.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Samuel, G.N., I.H. Kerridge, and T.A. O’Brien. 2008. Umbilical cord blood banking: Public good or private benefit? Medical Journal of Australia 188(9): 533–535.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Solinger, R. 1998. Poisonous choice. In “Bad” mothers: The politics of blame in twentieth-century America, ed. M. Ladd-Taylor and L. Umansky, 381–402. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Stöcker, M. 1992. Plural and conflicting values. Oxford: Clarendon.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Taylor, C. 1982. The diversity of goods. In Utilitarianism and beyond, ed. A. Sen and B. Williams, 129–144. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Taylor, J.S. 2000. Of sonograms and baby prams: Prenatal diagnosis, pregnancy, and consumption. Feminist Studies 26(2): 391–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Thomson, J.J. 1997. The right over the good. The Journal of Philosophy 94(6): 273–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Titmuss, R. 1970. The gift relationship: From human blood to social policy. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
  33. Valentine, K. 2005. Citizenship, identity, blood donation. Body & Society 11(2): 113–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Waldby, C. 2006. Umbilical cord blood: From social gift to venture capital. BioSocieties 1(1): 55–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wildman, J., and B. Hollingsworth. 2009. Blood donation and the nature of altruism. Journal of Health Economics 28(2): 492–503.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Williams, B. 1985. Ethics and the limits of philosophy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Maree Porter
    • 1
  • Ian H. Kerridge
    • 1
  • Christopher F. C. Jordens
    • 1
  1. 1.Centre for Values, Ethics and the Law in Medicine (VELiM), Central Clinical SchoolUniversity of SydneyCamperdownAustralia

Personalised recommendations