The World Health Organization (WHO), the United Nations Development Fund, the National Institute of Health, as well as pharmaceutical companies, clinicians and researchers abide by guidelines established through the ideology of “universal usefulness,” which is defined as “benefiting...more than one group or country…[applicable] to several, [and] preferably all, population groups and ...extending to current and future generations” (Feierman 189). However, is instituting a universalist goal from the top down realistic or advantageous? Does it take into account how material objects, clinical practices, and/or biomedical “facts,” applicability vary by the contexts in which it is used, more specifically, by settings and regions? In addition,
…show more content…
the ultrasound has become ‘‘baby’s first picture’’ as a result of and reinforcing ‘‘the fetus as subject’’...with its own rights (Caspar 1998). In Greece, ultrasound, introduced at a time when television had become widely available, came to be seen as just another ‘‘television set’’ (Mitchell and Georges 2000). In Brazil, 3D ultrasound is used to establish and reinforce kinship ties (Chazan 2007). Ultrasound in India has turned into a sex selection device that allows female feticide rather than infanticide (Heesterbeek 2000). In Vietnam, ultrasound is fully embedded into the country’s particular biochemical war history and associated fear of malformations (Gammeltoft …show more content…
Moreover, these universalistic directives dictated by donors, corporations, governing bodies, and researchers need to be a reversed and generated at the local levels, incorporating the input of medical professionals from developing countries. Such framework should also include an avenue that enables feedback from those on the “lower-level...who have intimate knowledge of medicine on the front lines” (Feierman 173). As “Ghanaian and Zimbabwean physicians,” stated, they were extremely “frustrated with the problem, but did not have the power to define priorities separate from those of international donors” (Feierman 189). In addition to amending how directives are initiated, it would also be beneficial to identify settings/regions which although not identical, could possess similar economics, infrastructures and patient populations. This would enable donors, clinicians and researchers to edit the transfer of material objects, clinical practices, and/or biomedical “facts,” according to how these factors are used in context of these regions. Lastly, it is imperative to realize that not all technologies, practices and knowledge are relevant or transferable, and for those that are, they may be transposed in the process, however, it doesn’t negate their
the ultrasound has become ‘‘baby’s first picture’’ as a result of and reinforcing ‘‘the fetus as subject’’...with its own rights (Caspar 1998). In Greece, ultrasound, introduced at a time when television had become widely available, came to be seen as just another ‘‘television set’’ (Mitchell and Georges 2000). In Brazil, 3D ultrasound is used to establish and reinforce kinship ties (Chazan 2007). Ultrasound in India has turned into a sex selection device that allows female feticide rather than infanticide (Heesterbeek 2000). In Vietnam, ultrasound is fully embedded into the country’s particular biochemical war history and associated fear of malformations (Gammeltoft …show more content…
Moreover, these universalistic directives dictated by donors, corporations, governing bodies, and researchers need to be a reversed and generated at the local levels, incorporating the input of medical professionals from developing countries. Such framework should also include an avenue that enables feedback from those on the “lower-level...who have intimate knowledge of medicine on the front lines” (Feierman 173). As “Ghanaian and Zimbabwean physicians,” stated, they were extremely “frustrated with the problem, but did not have the power to define priorities separate from those of international donors” (Feierman 189). In addition to amending how directives are initiated, it would also be beneficial to identify settings/regions which although not identical, could possess similar economics, infrastructures and patient populations. This would enable donors, clinicians and researchers to edit the transfer of material objects, clinical practices, and/or biomedical “facts,” according to how these factors are used in context of these regions. Lastly, it is imperative to realize that not all technologies, practices and knowledge are relevant or transferable, and for those that are, they may be transposed in the process, however, it doesn’t negate their