Picture perfect: ‘4D’ ultrasound and the commoditisation of the private prenatal clinic

Body work is a central activity in the practice of many workers in the field of health and social care. This article provides an introduction to the concept of body work--paid work on the bodies of others--and demonstrates its importance for understanding the activities of health and social care workers. Providing an overview of existing research on body work, it shows the manifold ways in which this can inform the sociology of health and illness--whether through a micro-social focus on the inter-corporeal aspects of work in health and social care, or through elucidating our understanding of the times and spaces of work, or through highlighting the relationship between mundane body work and the increasingly global movements of bodies, workers and those worked-upon. The article shows how understanding work undertaken on the bodies of others as 'body work' provides a mechanism for relating work in the sphere of health and social care to that in other sectors, opening up new avenues for research.

The normative folk model of kinship in the US continues to attach great significance to "blood" relationships. These implicit genetic links are commonly reinforced through observations about a child's physical similarity to parents or other family members, i.e., "resemblance talk". This paper explores the meanings of resemblance and resemblance talk for parents drawing on semi-structured interviews with 148 heterosexual couples who had used a donor gamete to conceive at least one living child. For parents of children conceived with donor eggs or sperm, resemblance talk represents the ongoing threat that comments about physical appearance could stigmatize their children or cast doubt on the legitimacy of their family structure. Furthermore, these concerns were present regardless of whether a sperm or egg donor had been used and irrespective of the parents' disclosure decision, i.e., whether or not their children were told of the true nature of their conception. Parents found that resemblance talk was not only ubiquitous, unavoidable, and uncontrollable, but it also had the capacity to exacerbate ongoing uncertainties about their disclosure decision (or lack of one), worries about establishing their child within the extended family, and apprehension that insensitive remarks could make the child feel different from other family members. As a result, many couples spent considerable energy developing a variety of strategies for managing resemblance talk that included genetic plausibility arguments, "passing", and strategic silence. We conclude that parents of children conceived with a donor address and contest normative definitions of kinship and family, including stigma and otherness, resist challenges to the family they have created, and, to some extent, rework their allegiance to cultural norms to suit their own needs. Because resemblance talk and disclosure decisions are frequently tied to each other, it is likely that if the public were more accepting of difference, parents would likely feel more comfortable with disclosure. Yet resemblance talk may make it more difficult for parents to disclose, not easier, as long as attitudes about the implicit primacy of genetic connectedness prevail.