Publications

Understanding reproductive coercion through a broader lens (draft available). This project proposes an expanded definition of reproductive coercion that allows for recognition of certain institutional, political, and clinical practices as reproductive coercion. Using the CDC's definition of reproductive coercion as a type of intimate abuse as the traditional understanding of the term, the project argues that this is too narrow of an understanding of the term. Instead, reproductive coercion ought to be defined as the following: Reproductive coercion is the set of behaviors, attitudes, and practices that attempt or enable attempts to create unwanted pregnancies, control the outcome of a pregnancy, interfere with access to or tamper with contraceptives, coerce or pressure someone into conceiving, or unduly influence someone’s decision to procreate. This can occur at the intimate, partner-to-partner level (intimate reproductive coercion), the political level (systematic reproductive coercion), and the healthcare, patient-provider level (clinical reproductive coercion).

 

Differentiating experiences of clinical reproductive coercion (research in progress). This project addresses the ways in which differing marginalized identities experience clinical reproductive coercion. racial and socioeconomic disparities serve a role in how reproductive coercion plays out. The value of an umbrella term such as clinical reproduction is that it provides the flexibility to address a myriad of problems without pigeon-holing a specific treatment or practice. Ultimately, it aims to identify an attitude that erodes patient autonomy and trust in patient-provider relationship.
 

Choice preservation or reproductive paternalism?: Analyzing refusals to provide voluntary sterilizations on the basis of non-medical factors (draft available). This project addresses the common practice of denying patients access to voluntary sterilization procedures on the basis of age or social factors such as marital status. While a provider’s right to conscientiously object must be considered, the cases I will discuss do not appear to be cases of conscientious refusal, as the provider does not object to the treatment itself, but rather to providing the treatment to people of certain ages or social groups. The question then becomes, is it ethically responsible for providers to preserve future choices about natural parenthood for the patient by refusing to honor current autonomously-made decisions or is this practice unjustifiably paternalistic?
 

Lying to convey truth: Language games and power dynamics in the clinical setting (draft available). This project explores the reasons why patients might feel the need to lie or mislead their providers. Is this behavior necessitated by the fact that providers presuppose in many cases that the patient is going to lie? Do these presuppositions on the part of the provider lead to unjustified dismissals of patient testimony? When we analyze the uneven power dynamics of this relationship, it becomes clear that patients and providers do not play by the same rules of communication, and that patients are playing at a disadvantage. Some patients believe that lying to or misleading providers might be the only way they will be heard, taken seriously, and properly cared for. This project will address the moral status of lying, evaluate power dynamics and its effect on testimony, and how these concepts play out in the healthcare setting in order to suggest that in some cases, it may be morally appropriate or even necessary for patients to lie to or mislead their providers.
 

Relational autonomy and non-reciprocal expectations of trust in healthcare (research in progress). This project highlights the ways in which social trust relationships with professionals, namely, between women and healthcare providers, are complicated by the fact that healthcare is itself an institution that is influenced by and complicit in perpetuating institutionalized oppressive norms. While it might be easy to point to extreme examples of gross misconduct as reasons why women distrust healthcare, the greater likelihood is that consistent experiences of sexist attitudes and distrust on the part of providers contribute in a more meaningful way to the disintegration of the trust relationship. One of the more insidious and trust-eroding ways in which these attitudes manifest is in the form of providers not trusting women on the basis of unjust institutional prejudices, which exasperates the inherent vulnerability of patients, who are dependent upon providers and therefore in a position of unequal relational power.