Making Comparisons in Technology and Culture
In Tsipy Ivry’s ethnographic work entitled Embodying Culture, Ivry provides insight on the pregnancy experience of heterosexual women from Israel and Japan who were impregnated in their twenties or thirties without the use of medical intervention (Page 5). She draws on both her participant observational research conducted in both countries and her time spent living in the countries of Israel and Japan. In the introduction to her ethnography, Ivry begins with a short story from her personal life that occurred back in 1996. Ivry was studying at Tokyo University when she became pregnant with her first child. Ivry describes her first experience with pregnancy as “overwhelming and an all-encompassing sense of becoming ‘different’” (Page 1). During her pregnancy, she travelled from Japan to Israel. While there, Ivry scheduled an appointment with her local ob-gyn. At that appointment, the Israeli doctor was reviewing the prenatal tests that had been conducted back in Japan, and he demanded that Ivry return to the clinic the following day to receive a vital test: the triple marker. The triple marker is “a screening test that uses a biochemical analysis of maternal blood to estimate the probabilities of chromosomal abnormalities in the fetus” (Page 3). The results of the triple test indicated unclear results regarding the health of the fetus and further testing was urged, including amniocentesis. Ivry chose not to undergo the amniocentesis, but rather opted to receive an ultrasound. The ultrasound showed optimistic results for the fetus’s health, but the doctors could not be certain of the condition of the fetus without amniocentesis. The tremendous anxiety that Ivry endured worrying about the health of her baby was taxing throughout the rest of her pregnancy. In the end, Ivry gave birth to a healthy baby girl.
Now the mother of four daughters, Tsipy Ivry has not only experienced pregnancy first-hand in Israel and Japan, but has also conducted vast anthropological research on how each of these cultures view pregnancy. Ivry is interested in studying “pregnancy as a cultural and social phenomenon” (Page 1). Through her experiences, she realized that the notion of pregnancy and how society treats pregnant women can vary tremendously depending on culture. One major example that Ivry provides is when she is comparing and analyzing authoritative knowledge about pregnancy in Japan and Israel. Ivry labels both Japanese and Israeli approaches towards pregnancy. Japan’s authoritative knowledge on pregnancy is called “environmentalism”, and Israel’s is called “geneticism”.
Environmentalism and geneticism are two major factors included in the analysis of this ethnography. Environmentalism refers to the Japanese belief that the overall health of the fetus is the direct responsibility of the mother’s body (the uterus being the environment of the fetus) (Page 11). Thus, upkeep of the body by avoiding massive weight gain and strictly monitoring diet during pregnancy is crucial to maintaining a healthy environment for the fetus.
Geneticism refers to the Israeli approach to pregnancy in which genetic material—genes and chromosomes—are responsible for the health of the fetus. In this case, the responsibility to maintain the health of the fetus still falls on the mother, but in a different way than with environmentalism. In geneticism, the mother is responsible to undergo genetic diagnostic testing with modern technologies in order to help ensure a healthy fetus. If the diagnostic testing yields questionable results, the woman can be put in a tough spot in deciding whether to get an abortion.
In this ethnography, Ivry also points out that large-scale issues can directly play a role in pregnancy laws of a country. On a national scale, population sizes, birth rates, economic performance, and many other factors can play a role in both abortion laws and also when setting quotas on how many children a family can raise. Additionally, both Japanese and Israeli governments highly regulate the public image and stigma of prenatal diagnosis, amniocentesis, and even abortion. Ivry goes into depth describing how the Japanese government monitored the state of national affairs and altered their reproduction laws accordingly throughout the past one-hundred years.
On page 74 of the ethnography, Ivry provides a succinct description of Israeli pregnancy theory. “Pregnancy is basically a chaotic process in which nature is liable to make mistakes, and it is this dangerous process that biomedicine must handle.” In Israel, the use of prenatal diagnosis (PND) is widespread and rarely refused. PNDs do not receive harsh criticism in Israeli society. In fact, at public Israeli educational pregnancy events, “horror picture shows” are presented. These displays instill fear into women and encourage them to seek out PNDs. Pregnant Israeli women are described as “hysterical” and have a need to know for sure that their fetus is healthy. There is no negative stigma associated with PND use in Israel. In Israel, PNDs are recommended to all women above the age of 35, but most pregnant women are encouraged to seek out PND testing, regardless of age. Additionally, amniocentesis is commonly conducted in Israel. Even though there is risk involved with the procedure, the popular opinion is that the benefits outweigh the risk. This public attitude towards PND testing and amniocentesis directly reflects the Israeli geneticism perspective on pregnancy.
In Japanese cultures, on the other hand, prenatal diagnostic testing is not mainstream, as in Israel. Pregnant Japanese women do undergo pregnancy testing, but not nearly to the same extent as Israeli women. Furthermore, Japanese women rarely will utilize amniocentesis. Ivry even displays that in Japan, “women who dread fetal abnormality face tremendous difficulties in managing their anxieties, and their anxieties might not necessarily lead them to undergo diagnostic tests such as amniocentesis” (Page 181). This approach exemplifies the environmentalist approach that the environment of the uterus will provide health to the fetus. The belief in Japan both by doctors and the general society is that health is provided to the fetus by not gaining large amounts of weight and also by eating a healthy diet during pregnancy. This is such a paramount concern for Japanese doctors that they almost obsess over a woman’s weight while pregnant. Contrarily, Israeli doctors do not pay much attention to weight gain during pregnancy. Ivry even provides accounts of Israeli doctors not even weighing women once throughout the duration of their pregnancy.
As we can see from both Israeli and Japanese pregnancy cultures, the norms of pregnancy from a medical perspective, personal perspective, and anthropological perspective vary greatly depending on the culture we are analyzing.
One topic that I found particularly interesting from Tsipy Ivry’s ethnographic work was her discussion on “common knowledge” (P. 130-131). Common knowledge is described as essentially facts that are nearly universally held in a society. One example is presented when discussing precautions of riding on trains when pregnant in Japan. The thought is that the jerking of the train can possibly cause a miscarriage during the first trimester. Obviously, this is not a commonly held precaution worldwide, but in Japan it is widely believed. I found this observation intriguing because there is no evidence linking train-riding to miscarriages, but the entire Japanese society appears to take caution with pregnant women riding trains. My point is that common sense/knowledge is possibly only common to a specific culture, but may not be so commonly known or believed in other cultures. Common knowledge is dependent on many factors and can vary culture to culture.
Questions:
During the discussion of amniocentesis practices, Ivry points out that—in general—Israeli doctors may leave out details of possible negative outcomes of the amniocentesis procedure. Even if the society that you live in supports the use of amniocentesis (Israel, for example), is it ethical for doctors to leave out these details in order to ensure that the practice of amniocentesis continues?
Is it ethical for doctors to perform amniocentesis to prevent unhealthy births (effectively protecting the life of the child) when there is risk of death, although small, for the mother?
Assuming that you believe that everything is “created in G-d’s image”, do you think PND/amniocentesis use is ethical? If yes, how can you justify “proofreading” G-d’s work (fetus)?
From a doctor’s perspective, are there times that patients should be required to undergo amniocentesis? What if a woman is at high-risk and is petrified of fetal abnormality?
How can you justify changing national laws that were instituted based on moral principles, as happened in Japan? This question is in reference to the altering of abortion laws depending on the economic state of the country.
Do you think there should be limits on when amniocentesis results should be used when deciding when to have an abortion? This question is in reference to Ivry’s mentioning of some types of fetal abnormalities in which individuals can develop to live productive and independent lives. For example, with Down’s syndrome, individuals can develop into functioning individuals who live independently and support themselves with a career.
In class last week, we discussed the concept that knowledge has the potential to be more harmful than helpful. Do you think that technology also has the capacity to be more harmful than helpful? If so, how?
Great job on the blog post! You really were able to flesh out the most important parts of the article. One thing I enjoyed about your blog post was that you did a side by side comparison of the two different cultures, and within your paragraphs, you often had side by side sentences to compare. The proximity of the juxtaposition allowed me to more easily make the connections rather than comprehending a comparison further apart. One thing you could do to help with fluency with your blog post is reduce redundancy in the paragraph talking about the Israeli pregnancy theory. In the middle of the paragraph, you restate things that have already been said. Other than that, you had a very detailed summary while even including your own opinions.
These are very thought-provoking questions. Answering a combination of questions addressing similar moral and ethical issues, I do not think that PND/amniocentesis use is ethical. This use makes the decision for the baby and could lead to an abortion, which portrays the belief that whatever genetic disease the baby has will prevent them from having a functional life. For example, like you stated, people with Down syndrome have proved to live a life that is sustainable for them. Furthermore, there are other genetic diseases that may not have as high of a success rate with a person being able to support themselves, but maybe they can learn to do so. They can learn perseverance despite their physical obstacles. If people continue to abort fetuses with more fatal genetic diseases, how will we know if they can actually learn to support themselves? I think everyone that is conceived should be given a chance to live even if they have to live with illness. This is a sweeping claim, but I believe that everyone should be given a chance to also experience happiness and joy, and with suffering and pain, one can really learn to appreciate happiness.
Hi Giang,
Thank you for sharing your thoughts.
I do agree that everyone should have the right to live, and who are we, as humans, to decide the fate of other humans? But at the same time, do you think there is a balance between a human having the right to live versus the suffering we are imposing (for lack of a better word) on the child by not receiving genetic testing and considering abortion?
Jonah, I thought your blog post was very well written! Your use of quotes throughout the passage helped tie together your personal thoughts with the reading. Also, I thought you provided a very helpful, concise summary of the contrasting points of view of the different cultures of both Israel and Japan.
Regarding your first question, I don’t think it is ethical for doctors to withhold negative outcomes in order to maintain the practice of amniocentesis. From my understanding, I think, essentially, the whole point of amniocentesis is to figure out whether or not the future child will have chromosomal abnormalities, which can, for the most part, lead to negative outcomes. If a mother were to undergo amniocentesis because she is very concerned for the future health of her child, I think it is necessary that the doctor tell the mother all the outcomes of the tests. One might argue that it would be better for the mother to not know of the negative results because it could prevent her from being stressed during pregnancy. But, I would think that realizing after the birth that the child has abnormalities would be worse because the mother could be unprepared for the circumstances of the negative outcomes.
That being said, while I do understand how technology could be viewed as more harmful than helpful, I think, up to a point, that technology could prove to be more helpful. Technology such as PNDs and amniocentesis can provide negative outcomes, but I don’t think its harmful to know all the possibilities that could arise from your pregnancy. Knowing what lies ahead could prove to be helpful for young mothers because it allows them to know what is coming and gives them time to prepare and think about all their options.
Hi Molly,
Your comments are very thought provoking. I think that when considering the need for mothers to know all of the details of their fetus’s condition can be related back to the cultural differences of Japan and Israel. In Israel, the cultural norm is to undergo amniocentesis to test for abnormalities, but in Japan, they follow more of an environmentalist approach and seemingly attribute fetal health to the health of the womb.
Your post nicely discussed the main areas of focus in the reading this week. I felt that the organization of the post was clear because you first discussed the incentive of the study, then the major cultural themes in Japan and Israel, and then related specific examples back to those cultural themes. You explained the conclusions well, but I would’ve liked to see more explanation of the methodology as well- perhaps discussing what kinds of people Tsipy Ivry interacted with and drew insights from. She mainly talked to pregnant women from both countries, sometimes their husbands, ob-gyn’s, and teachers at those birth-education classes. I felt it was really effective that she went to those pregnancy events in Israel because she had access to a more diverse population of women in a more public setting than the clinic. It allowed her to see how ideas about pregnancy fit into society. This is something Rayna Rapp would have benefited from in her ethnographic study that we read about for last class. One question you ask is whether we think there should be limits on when amniocentesis results should be used when deciding when to have an abortion. This brings back our discussion of the disability rights movement. In her book, Ivry references this controversial debate between honoring life despite abnormalities and preventing a potential life of suffering for a child. Like Giang mentioned above, I understand that promoting abortion of fetuses with genetic conditions can lead to notions that there is a certain kind of life that we prioritize over others. It can also encourage belittling of groups of people with disabilities. Before this reading, I thought of eugenics as a theory of perfecting society in terms of features like hair color, eyes color, etc. But now, I see how promoting the exclusion of fetuses with genetic conditions can also be a form of eugenics because it attempts to diminish the population of people with disabilities. In light of these ideas, I think that perhaps there should be limits on when abortion is okay.
Thanks for the very important methodological points, which we should always be focused on, and for referring back to other comments. In mentioning abortion rights, are you referring to public policy or to your own feelings about when it should be okay?
When I made this post, I was referring to public policy. But upon reflecting further, I think perhaps it may be the underlying culture that is problematic. We may be advancing in terms of disability rights, but as long as there are cultural beliefs against maintaining pregnancies with abnormal fetuses, we are proposing conflicting attitudes about disabilities in society. I think new policies can help resolve these problems, but they must follow changes in thought in the members of society.
Hi Rachel,
Thank your for your comment. I appreciate that you brought up the methodology behind Ivry’s work. It is an area in which I failed to address in my post, but I feel is necessary to gaining a deeper understanding of Israeli and Japanese pregnancy cultures.
Dear Jonah,
Nice job on your post, though I would have liked to hear a little more about your analysis of “common knowledge.” If a belief such as not riding trains during pregnancy is widely held and practiced, can it be regarded as incorrect? Couldn’t a thing be true just because a population of people says it is so? I think what it comes down to is a culture’s source for knowledge. In her chapter on Israeli OB-GYNs, Ivry comments on doctors’ frustrations with individuals who refuse PND. She writes, “the above narrative is more [concerned] with the preservation of power relations that are based on the superiority of medical knowledge over other forms of knowledge.” (68) It seems that Israeli culture–similarly to our culture–values science and medical knowledge as the primary way of understanding the world. Through this lens, women not riding trains during pregnancy to prevent miscarriage is crazy–it’s not backed by scientific evidence. However, the Japanese seem to take a more holistic approach to pregnancy. Ivry mentions the influence of East Asian medical practice on Japanese doctors; an approach that is not any less valid but simply relies more on trial-by-fire (thousands of years of tried and true practices) and less on technology. Thus, the train superstition does not seem so crazy after all. I find this incredibly interesting, especially being an aspiring doctor. I–without question–value medical/scientific knowledge over other types of knowledge. It’s kind of hard to swallow that this form of knowledge may not be absolute truth. What do you think?
-HG
You will be a better doctor for having these thoughts now
Hi Hannah,
I completely agree with your comment regarding the concept of common knowledge. My thought is that common knowledge is culturally relative. I suspect there are many aspects of our society that we see as cogent and logical (maybe even backed by scientific evidence) that other cultures may view as senseless. I would be curious to delve into this topic.
Unit 6 Response:
Jonah, overall I feel your blog post was very detailed and informative. However, I would have liked to see more analysis of the novel and connections to previous weeks’ discussions. For example, Ivry gives an anecdote of how she gave birth in both Japan and Israel. I feel that this relates to Rayna Rapp’s book in the sense that both authors give their readings a personal feel before describing in detail their views on prenatal testing of fetuses. This allows the readers to understand that the authors have personal experience in the situation; in my opinion, this gives their work more credibility.
One aspect I thoroughly enjoyed in the book was the ability to understand views on pregnancy through the Japanese culture and Israeli culture. It is difficult for a writer to explain both views while still maintaining an objective tone, but I feel Ivry managed to do so in a clear manner. I personally feel the “geneticism” approach fits my view better due to the following reason. While the baby is in the womb, I feel the mother has a moral duty to keep its baby safe and nurture it. I feel prenatal testing falls under this category and a mother should undertake the test to see the health status of her fetus.
Overall Jonah, I thought your blog post was well written; a little less summary and more analysis would have been more helpful though.
I agree that we need to do more each week to connect the readings with previous weeks. But with regard to testing, how do you reconcile the possible harm that also comes with some tests?
Dr. Seeman,
Yesterday’s movie is when I started realizing the harm that prenatal tests may have. For example, I did not realize that having such tests may result in miscarriage. Before, I was always supportive of mothers having tests done to ensure the well-being of their fetus; however, now I feel less inclined towards my previous belief. To some people it may feel inappropriate to conduct a test searching for Down Syndrome when the probability of having a miscarriage as a result of the test is the same. In addition, anxiety may be instilled in the pregnant mother, which is a controversial topic when it comes to prenatal testing.
Hi Petar,
I agree with you regarding the Israeli geneticism perspective. I believe this may be a result of our Western mindset embracing technological advances rather than more traditional approaches.
Hi Jonah,
I really enjoyed reading your blogpost! I especially liked that you included the section about common knowledge and how it can differ depending on culture and may only be ‘universally’ common in a certain culture. I thought this was a really interesting anectode by Ivry.
From Ivry’s book I was surprised to learn how strongly prenatal testing is encouraged in Israel. Personally, I always thought that there would be a negative correlation between how dominant religion can be in a society and how much prenatal testing is encouraged/ allowed by the law. Since Israel is a country in which (to my knowledge) society is more heavily influenced by religion than for instance most Western European countries, I thought prenatal testing would more heavily restricted there.
I’ve spent most of my life living in Western Europe which I think has some of the most secular countries in the world, where policy making is very little concerned with religious traditions. I think a good example to illustrate this would be the phrase “God bless America” – a phrase very commonly used by politicians in the U.S.. If such a phrase was used by any politician in most Western European countries, it would probably almost spark an outrage. To continue my main point, I think it is interesting that such countries, which are so secularly oriented have more restrictions on prenatal testing and often a socially lesser opinion on prenatal testing. In Germany for instance ,testing for chromosomal abnormalities remains controversial – even today.
While I was impressed by how far developed the use of prenatal testing is, I thought the “horror picture shows” are insensitive towards people with disabilities. While Ivry tries to use history to explain this Jewish/Israeli thinking which justifies the use of these horror shows by saying: “The idea that terrible catastrophes—either physical, spiritual, or both—are around the corner predominates in parts of the collective Jewish memory and reestablishes itself through the commemoration of key events in Jewish history.” (75), I think it is unjust to equate the birth of children, who may be born with severe disabilities as a catastrophes, or to paint them as such. I think this could create a very negative image of people with such disabilities in a society. And even though the practice of prenatal testing might be very prevalent, people with such disabilities exist in every society and country.
Thanks Keywan, this is very insightful. Clearly, the prominence of religion by itself is not enough to predict how reproductive technologies will be adopted. We also need to be aware of differences within a given society, which may include class, religious or political differences of other kinds. For example in Israel, the community of doctors is not by any means universally secular minded, but it may be more so than the general populace. This is why we need detailed studies of individual societies and cannot generalize. Germany of course has its own special history, which we will talk about in the unit on cloning later on.
Unit 6 Blog Response
Jonah, thank you for the blog post. I thought you did well to give an overall description of the key points from the text but I would like to see more of your opinions and viewpoints on the various topics at hand. I thought it was interested to see the contrast between the cultural surround pregnancy between Japan and Israel. I saw the two countries taking the different sides of “nature versus nurture”, a sort of biological debate I believe to be “common knowledge” in the higher educated Western culture. As a student of science, I understand this debate to be two sides of the same coin that continuously influences the quality of life of an individual, from the moment the sperm and egg combine to a unique genetic identity until the time of death. It seems to me that the difference in cultures comes from the different idea of influence the mother has on her future child. The geneticism ideology in Israel comes with the belief the mother has little control on the fetus besides her decision coming from information on the genes. This is starkly different from the Japanese belief the mother has complete influence on her future child’s health. This different viewpoints on where the responsibility is placed seems to push the culture towards their different pregnancy practices. So if we believe in the idea that knowledge brings power, I see it ethical, if not necessary, for doctors to give all the details to a mother seeking out the practice of amniocentesis. I don’t believe this knowledge should stop at the genetic code and possibility abilities of the fetus but also the knowledge of what it can take to raise a child if they are with what is considered “fetal abnormalities”.
So, you weigh in on the side of total information all the time. Do you worry that information may not be assimilated or may cause other harms, like unnecessary testing?
Hello Jonah,
Your blog was a good condensation and analysis of the reading. The dichotomy presented of environmentalism and geneticism across Japan and Israel, respectively, is interesting to think about in terms of numbers. Both infant mortality rates of these countries are lower than that of the United States. However, despite what I expected of a country that relied more heavily on scientific methods for pregnancies, Israel has a higher mortality rate than that of Japan’s environmentalist approach to pregnancies. Obviously infant mortality is not the only metric for numerical comparison, but additional cross cultural comparisons could shed light on efficacy of particular practices and behaviors.
Your questions were very thought provoking. In response to the question on Israel selective detail-sharing, if a test has been requested, I don’t think the ulterior motive of protecting the reputation of prenatal tests is enough justification for the deliberate withholding of information.
In the American narrative of rights deriving from judicial and legislative precedent. The American system has largely based on commercial choice—free to use whatever services you can afford if you would like it; with little absolutely necessary restrictions or obligations. For example, there is varying leeway on medical standards such as vaccinations or organ usage across regions in the United States and cultures around the world, which makes the conservation on societal bounds so important.
Thanks for mentioning infant mortality. That is an important part of this conversation. But apparently, reliance on what you call science (I would call it prenatal intervention) is not the only factor that contributes! You need to look at a much broader canvas including poverty, levels of inequality, ethnic divisions, etc.
Hey Jonah! Your response was very well written. I really enjoyed the overview you provided of the ethnography, as it encompassed the similarities and differences of the pregnancy culture in Japan and Israel.
I found your discussion questions very interesting, and a few were questions I had while reading as well. The first question you posed, regarding whether or not doctors should be able to withhold negative results of an amniocentesis, reminded me of the discussion we had during the last class, when we talked about whether or not IVF should be offered if the supplementary procedures are not available. Personally, I don’t believe that withholding medical information is the best course of action, especially if that information can affect the family’s decision to go through with a pregnancy. While I don’t think that the decision should be made by the physician, I can understand if the family decides to forgo getting the negative results of an amniocentesis.
I agree with Giang, Molly and Rachel’s responses, in that I do believe that there is a fine line between the benefits and drawbacks of prenatal testing. This discussion is similar to Rayna Rapp’s argument that prenatal testing toes on the line of disability rights. Although these readings provide a holistic understanding of the pros and cons of prenatal testing and amniocentesis, I am still trying to decide where I stand on the issue as it relates to abortion.
Sai, let’s try to disentangle our own individual views on abortion from the question of public policy. Does that change how you look at things?
Jonah-
I think you did a great job with your post this week. I especially liked the way you divided up the content into manageable parts which allowed the reader to follow along easily. Furthermore, providing definitions for Geneticism and environmentalism helped with the understanding of your analysis later on. I also agree with a comment above in that you could have tied your discussion more with the conversation in class last week, especially when you discuss how Ivry uses a wide variety of perspectives in her work, which contrasts with some of the critiques of Rapp’s book we touched on beforehand. I also think that your analysis on common knowledge might be more complex than your definitions, but at the same time I think that this was a challenging concept to define.
With regards to the practices of amniocentesis, I think that the reading really challenged my way of thinking in regards to being introspective with regards to how culturally constructed my viewpoint is. Initially, I was very much in the mindset that amniocentesis is a matter of free choice. Doctors should explain the procedure, harms and benefits, in honesty to the patient in the case of a high risk pregnancy, without casting judgement. Whether or not to have the procedure or to later on abort the fetus is in the moral judgement zone of the parents. However, when looking at these readings and the analysis, it caused me to think about how much my opinion is influenced by the culture of free choice and free will in the US. Perhaps if I had been raised and educated in a different culture I would have a completely different mindset in these regards. This is also important for those who are planning on training to become a doctor in regards to how to address these issues when speaking to people who have a very different mindset than you might have.
Thanks Diana, but please spell out your disagreement over the matter of common knowledge. Also, let’ hear more in class about your own change of views.
Jonah-
I really enjoyed the style of your blog post. I think you made a great point about common knowledge being common to specific cultures. The perception of trains leading to miscarriages reminds me of Dr. Seeman’s example of how frequently Russians would not take their blood pressure medicine when it was a low atmospheric pressure day. Because of these common ideas, an increase in the education of the general public is needed. Moving on to your questions, I think it is a right of the patient to know all of the negative side effects of a procedure before undergoing the procedure. I believe that this has become pretty standard at least in America, from everything from medical procedures to the surgeon general’s warning on a pack of cigarettes. I personally have a hard time with PNDs for the purpose of deciding whether or not to terminate the pregnancy. I understand that it can be difficult to raise a child with certain diseases, but none of us are perfect, and what if the certain imperfection that each of us have was something that was selected against? Technology is absolutely wonderful, but it is also detrimental. I do believe in some cases that it can do more harm than good. For instance, the worry caused by an amniocentesis could cause negative side effects that would not otherwise be had without the test.
Ben
Thanks Ben. Do you mean to imply that “common knowledge” of culture must always give way to “education” based on evidetiary studies? Why? This is worth discussing.
Hi Ben,
I think you have raised some good points in your comment.
I believe that the example of Russian’s not taking their blood pressure medication is an example of common knowledge. I think that common knowledge is present in all cultures, but it may be tough to see examples of this in our own culture because the whole concept of common knowledge is that that a large majority in our society believe the knowledge to be true.
Unit 6 Blog Response
Hi Jonah! I thoroughly enjoyed your analysis of Ivry’s novel; I think you truly encompassed Ivry’s main point that pregnancy is a “meaningful cultural category.” It is extremely interesting to think how the process of birth, which by definition is just a phenomenon of nature, has such high cultural value. It got me thinking of how the entire female menstrual cycle has high cultural value starting from the first time a girl starts her period and how that event alone warrants either celebration or disdain depending on the culture.
The entire novel really showed how views on pregnancy cover an entire spectrum and your comments on common knowledge were interesting. My view of pregnancy is affected by cultures in India and the U.S. and I think my view is in between the Japanese and Israeli ones described. I was shocked at the account of woman telling an Israeli ultrasound expert that she is pregnant. Rather than being greeted in a warm congratulatory manner (which I am used to), the woman was given a colder response. However, prenatal testing still seems common to me, it is just viewed more positively and the issue of an abortion itself seems to cause the ethical debates. On the hand, in the U.S. we also do things similar to Japanese traditions like “taikyo” or talking to the unborn baby. Hence, it seems like a mixture of the environmentalist and geneticism approaches.
Thus, I agree with the fact that common knowledge is only common within a culture, but there will always be some cross-cultural similarities. Furthermore, I think the use technology and interpretation of results is harmful, but not necessarily the technology itself. Rather, I lean more on the side of the discussion we had in class about knowledge being harmful and view technology as a vehicle of gaining knowledge. Do you think that Ivry makes it seem that technology itself has the capacity to be harmful?
Thanks Rasika, let’s here more in class about your experience of American-Indian cultures of pregnancy.
Hi Jonah,
These are all great questions. But it is time for you to answer. What do you think?
Clearly, from all of the differing opinions and arguments, the topics and issues presented in this week’s reading are extremely convoluted.
In terms of patients having knowledge of medical testing they are preparing to undergo, I believe it is crucial for patients to know possible outcomes prior to undergoing the test. In the American healthcare system, informed consent is a big deal. Patients must be aware of possible outcomes, both positive and negative, before undergoing treatment.
I believe that when analyzing whether the use of amniocentesis is ethical, we must decide how to approach the issue. From a utilitarian point of view, “saving” the life of the fetus while putting a slight risk on the mother’s life seems ethical, but clearly, this issue is not that simple. “Saving” the fetus’s life if negative amniocentesis results return all depends on perspective (again). Some would view saving the life as protecting the fetus from future suffering by undergoing an abortion. Others would view it as preparing to care for the condition of the baby prior to birth.
I have trouble answering one of the questions that I posed in by post: Assuming that you believe that everything is “created in G-d’s image”, do you think PND/amniocentesis use is ethical? If yes, how can you justify “proofreading” G-d’s work (fetus)?
There are two ways that I view this question. The first is that everything G-d creates is perfect from the start, so there should be no need to change it via technology. The second is that G-d has given us the ability to utilize technology to “correct” His work. I am truly torn about how I feel in this ethical dilemma.
Overall, in my blog post, I should have included more information on the methods in which Ivry used to conduct her research. This would have provided further insight into Israeli and Japanese pregnancy cultures. Also, more discussion on the concept of “common knowledge” and connection to previous class readings would have been helpful.
Hi Jonah,
Great questions. Enjoyed your concise juxtaposition of geneticism in Israel and environmentalism in Japan, but as mentioned above would like to see a more succinct rather than a vague/implied connection as to how the specificity of “common knowledge” in a culture directly impacts moral decision/law-making. You could simply provide another sentence tying it to the bigger picture to make your argument stronger, or, if unsure of your own opinion, leave it as an open-ended question as to who should be allowed to make pre-natal decisions if common knowledge is relative and varies so much by culture?
Throughout the reading this week, I felt drawn to your last question of whether like knowledge, technology has a tendency to be more harmful than helpful. In both cultures, women faced massive anxiety whether they felt societal pressures to utilize technology or became obsessive over their weight and feared the worst when they abstained from it. Neither situation seems particularly favorable to me, but nuanced decisions often involve compromises and sacrifices to determine which costs matter more. I think this is a particularly difficult question to answer because Ivry’s discussion of common knowledge broadened my views and enlightened my understanding that what is best for laws in the U.S. wouldn’t necessarily be the same if I were living in Japan or Israel. Personally, I would prefer to only utilize general screening to determine if the pregnancy will pose a deadly risk to my health, excluding amniocentisis (knowing I would keep the baby unless it were going to kill me and not wanting to damage or threaten the fetus), because it provides a good balance of preparation for handling certain disabilities (including the possibility of adoption and financial planning) while also minimizing anxiety.