Research Commons
      • Browse 
        • Communities & Collections
        • Titles
        • Authors
        • By Issue Date
        • Subjects
        • Types
        • Series
      • Help 
        • About
        • Collection Policy
        • OA Mandate Guidelines
        • Guidelines FAQ
        • Contact Us
      • My Account 
        • Sign In
        • Register
      View Item 
      •   Research Commons
      • University of Waikato Research
      • Arts and Social Sciences
      • Arts and Social Sciences Papers
      • View Item
      •   Research Commons
      • University of Waikato Research
      • Arts and Social Sciences
      • Arts and Social Sciences Papers
      • View Item
      JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

      Drawing the line between essential and nonessential interventions on intersex characteristics with European health care professionals

      Hegarty, Peter; Prandelli, Marta; Lundberg, Tove; Liao, Lih-Mei; Creighton, Sarah; Roen, Katrina
      Thumbnail
      Files
      1089268020963622.pdf
      Published version, 161.6Kb
      DOI
       10.1177/1089268020963622
      Find in your library  
      Citation
      Export citation
      Hegarty, P., Prandelli, M., Lundberg, T., Liao, L.-M., Creighton, S., & Roen, K. (2020). Drawing the line between essential and nonessential interventions on intersex characteristics with European health care professionals. Review of General Psychology, 25(1), 101–114. https://doi.org/10.1177/1089268020963622
      Permanent Research Commons link: https://hdl.handle.net/10289/14522
      Abstract
      Human rights statements on intersex characteristics distinguish legitimate “medically necessary” interventions from illegitimate normalizing ones. Ironically, this binary classification seems partially grounded in knowledge of anatomy and medical interventions; the very expertise that human rights statements challenge. Here, 23 European health professionals from specialist “disorder of sex development” (DSD) multidisciplinary teams located medical interventions on a continuum ranging from “medically essential” to nonessential poles. They explained their answers. Participants mostly described interventions on penile/scrotal, clitoral/labial, vaginal, and gonadal anatomy whose essential character was only partially grounded in anatomical variation and diagnoses. To explain what was medically necessary, health care professionals drew on lay understandings of child development, parental distress, collective opposition to medicalization, patients “coping” abilities, and patients’ own choices. Concepts of “medical necessity” were grounded in a hybrid ontology of patients with intersex traits as both physical bodies and as phenomenological subjects. Challenges to medical expertise on human rights grounds are well warranted but presume a bounded and well-grounded category of “medically necessary” intervention that is discursively flexible. Psychologists’ long-standing neglect of people with intersex characteristics, and the marginalization of clinical psychologists in DSD teams, may contribute to the construction of some controversial interventions as medically necessary.
      Date
      2020
      Type
      Journal Article
      Publisher
      Sage Publications Inc
      Rights
      © 2020 The Author(s). This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Public License.
      Collections
      • Arts and Social Sciences Papers [1422]
      Show full item record  

      Usage

      Downloads, last 12 months
      97
       
       
       

      Usage Statistics

      For this itemFor all of Research Commons

      The University of Waikato - Te Whare Wānanga o WaikatoFeedback and RequestsCopyright and Legal Statement