Obstetric Ultrasound and the Technological Mediation of Morality: A Postphenomenological Analysis

Abstract

This article analyzes the moral relevance of technological artifacts and its possible role in ethical theory, by taking the postphenomenological approach that has developed around the work of Don Ihde into the domain of ethics. By elaborating a postphenomenological analysis of the mediating role of ultrasound in moral decisions about abortion, the article argues that technologies embody morality and help to constitute moral subjectivity. This technological mediation of the moral subject is subsequently addressed in terms of Michel Foucault’s ethical position, in which ethics is about actively co-shaping one’s moral subjectivity. Integrating Foucauldian ethics and postphenomenology, the article argues that the technological mediation of moral subjectivity should be at the heart of an ethical approach that takes the moral dimensions of technology seriously.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Boucher, J. (2004). Ultrasound: A window to the womb? Obstetric ultrasound and the abortion rights debate. Journal of Medical Humanities, 25, 7–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. De Vries, G. (1993). Gerede twijfel: over de rol van de medische ethiek in Nederland. Amsterdam: De Balie.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Dorrestijn, S. (2004). Bestaanskunst in de technologische cultuur: over de ethiek van door techniek beïnvloed gedrag. Master’s thesis. University of Twente, The Netherlands.

  4. Foucault, M. (1984a). L’usage des plaisirs. Paris: Gallimard.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Foucault, M. (1984b). Le souci de soi. Paris: Gallimard.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Foucault, M. (1997). Ethics: Subjectivity and truth In P. Rabinow (Ed.), New York: New Press.

  7. Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action. Boston: Beacon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Heidegger, M. (1969). Discourse on thinking (trans: Anderson, J.M. & Freund, E.H.). New York: Harper & Row.

  9. Hottois, G. (1996). Symbool en techniek. Kampen/Kapellen: Kok Agora/Pelckmans.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Ihde, D. (1990). Technology and the lifeworld. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Ihde, D. (1998). Expanding hermeneutics. Evanston: Northwestern University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Landsman, G. H. (1998). Reconstructing motherhood in the age of “perfect” babies: Mothers of infants and toddlers with disabilities. Signs, 24, 69–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Merleau-Ponty, M. (1962). Phenomenology of perception (trans: Smith, C.). London: Routledge.

  14. Mitchell, L. (2001). Baby’s first picture: Ultrasound and the politics of fetal subjects. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press.

    Google Scholar 

  15. O’Leary, T. (2002). Foucault. The art of ethics. London/New York: Continuum.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Oaks, L. (2000). Smoke-filled wombs and fragile fetuses: The social politics of fetal representation. Signs, 26, 63–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Petchesky, R. P. (1987). Fetal images: The power of visual culture in the politics of reproduction. Feminist Studies, 13, 263–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Rapp, R. (1998). Refusing prenatal diagnosis: The meanings of bioscience in a multicultural world. Science, Technology, and Human Values, 23, 45–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Sandelowski, M. (1994). Separate, but less unequal: Fetal ultrasonography and the transformation of expectant mother/fatherhood. Gender and Society, 8, 230–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Smith, A. (2003). Do you believe in ethics? Latour and Ihde in the trenches of the Science Wars (Or: Watch out, Latour, Ihde’s got a gun). In D. Ihde & E. Selinger (Eds.), Chasing technoscience: Matrix for materiality. (pp. 182–194). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Stormer, N. (2000). Prenatal space. Signs, 26, 109–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Trouw (2006, 11 December). Abortus om hazenlip komt voor-onderzoeken of echo’s leiden tot meer zwangerschapsafbrekingen. (newspaper article).

  23. Verbeek, P. P. (2005). What things do: Philosophical reflections on technology, agency, and design. University Park: Penn State University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Verbeek, P. P. (2006a). The morality of things—A postphenomenological inquiry. In E. Selinger (Ed.), Postphenomenology: A critical companion to Ihde. (pp. 117–130). New Albany: SUNY Press.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Verbeek, P. P. (2006b). Ethiek en technologie: moreel actorschap en subjectiviteit in een technologische cultuur. Ethische Perspectieven, 16, 267–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Zechmeister, I. (2001). Foetal images: The power of visual technology in antenatal care and the implications for women’s reproductive freedom. Health Care Analysis, 9, 387–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This article was written with financial support of NWO, the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (personal grant for innovational research, “veni” track).

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Peter-Paul Verbeek.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Verbeek, PP. Obstetric Ultrasound and the Technological Mediation of Morality: A Postphenomenological Analysis. Hum Stud 31, 11–26 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10746-007-9079-0

Download citation

Keywords

  • Ethics of technology
  • Philosophy of technology
  • Postphenomenology
  • Michel Foucault
  • Obstetric ultrasound