Event Title
Brominated Flame Retardants, Pregnant Women, and Relational Autonomy
Start Date
5-10-2011 12:00 PM
End Date
5-10-2011 12:45 PM
Abstract
Risk of exposure to Brominated Flame Retardants (BFRs) and other household chemicals is generally not discussed in prenatal care. This study explores perceptions and knowledge of pregnant women and obstetrical care providers regarding BFRs and other household chemicals. Eleven pregnant women and 11 obstetrical care providers in Southwestern Ontario were interviewed and audiotaped. Transcripts underwent rigorous qualitative analysis using a grounded theory approach supported by NVivo 9™ software. Prominent relationships identified included: patientprofessional, public‐government, media, research and community. The pregnant women interviewed often put the onus to protect their future children from household chemical risks on themselves. For example, Pregnant Woman 4 commented: “I believe you should be researching it yourself because your obstetrician doesn’t have time to know, like, everyday products that you are using…” Others look to the media and government. Healthcare professionals acknowledged a need to discuss these risks with women but felt others were in a better position for this discussion. For example, Obstetrician 2 said: “We generally don’t get to see patients until they’re 30 to 32 weeks pregnant or later on in their pregnancy… I think this would really be a general public education or family physician education.” Participants in this research seemed to believe that the various bodies in these relationships have independent functions. These results suggest that a relational ethics approach to environmental risk may be appropriate. Relational ethics scholars argue that we must view individuals as social beings to understand how policies shape individual agency and understanding.
This document is currently not available here.
Brominated Flame Retardants, Pregnant Women, and Relational Autonomy
Risk of exposure to Brominated Flame Retardants (BFRs) and other household chemicals is generally not discussed in prenatal care. This study explores perceptions and knowledge of pregnant women and obstetrical care providers regarding BFRs and other household chemicals. Eleven pregnant women and 11 obstetrical care providers in Southwestern Ontario were interviewed and audiotaped. Transcripts underwent rigorous qualitative analysis using a grounded theory approach supported by NVivo 9™ software. Prominent relationships identified included: patientprofessional, public‐government, media, research and community. The pregnant women interviewed often put the onus to protect their future children from household chemical risks on themselves. For example, Pregnant Woman 4 commented: “I believe you should be researching it yourself because your obstetrician doesn’t have time to know, like, everyday products that you are using…” Others look to the media and government. Healthcare professionals acknowledged a need to discuss these risks with women but felt others were in a better position for this discussion. For example, Obstetrician 2 said: “We generally don’t get to see patients until they’re 30 to 32 weeks pregnant or later on in their pregnancy… I think this would really be a general public education or family physician education.” Participants in this research seemed to believe that the various bodies in these relationships have independent functions. These results suggest that a relational ethics approach to environmental risk may be appropriate. Relational ethics scholars argue that we must view individuals as social beings to understand how policies shape individual agency and understanding.