medigraphic.com
ISSN 1561-3127 (Electronic)
ISSN 0864-3466 (Print)

2017, Number 1

<< Back Next >>

Revista Cubana de Salud Pública 2017; 43 (1)

Discursive practices and resistence as new female subjectivities in the inherited risk of breast cáncer

Laza VC, Calderón FJC

Language: Spanish
References: 31
Page: 82-93
PDF size: 80.50 Kb.


ABSTRACT

The molecularization of Biopolitics substantiates how in contemporary societies, based on the achievements of biotechnological industry and the great possibilities of results' applications, the body is built by making visible the invisible instead of an assembly of its parts: the genes. This brings about that the interest is not centered in disease but in "risk", its control and modification. An example of the abovementioned is seen in the development of tools to identify precise molecular biomarkers BRCA 1/2 capable of identifying and quantifying the "inherited risk" of breast cancer in women with family history of this disease. Therefore, an analysis of the emergence of the new female subjectivities, resulting from such life molecularization, was suggested: the discursive practices of "survival optimization" and the practices of resistance, the "surveillance" and the "biological citizenships" built from the bottom.


REFERENCES

  1. Beck U. La sociedad global del riesgo. Madrid: Siglo xxi de España editores; 2002.

  2. Beck U. La sociedad del riesgo. Hacia una nueva modernidad. Barcelona: PAIDÓS; 1998.

  3. Rabinow P, Rose N. Biopower today. BioSocieties. 2006;1:195-217.

  4. Novas C, Rose N. Genetic risk and the birth of the somatic individual. Econom Soc. 2005;29:4:485-513.

  5. Rose N. The Human Sciences in a Biological Age Theory. CultSoc. 2013;30:3-34.

  6. Foucault M. Historia de la sexualidad I. La voluntad de saber. Madrid: Editorial Siglo xxi de España; 1997.

  7. Foucault M.Políticas de la vida. Buenos Aires: Editorial Universitaria UNIPE; 2012.

  8. Córdova M. Políticas de la vida, retrato de una forma de vida emergente. Astrolavio. 2012;8:209-19.

  9. Brito LX. Quiéreme que me estoy muriendo Lady blue. Un acercamiento etnográfico a pacientes con cáncer [tesis]. Quito: Facultad latinoamericana de ciencias sociales sede Ecuador; 2014. .

  10. Rose N. Screen and Intervene: Governing Risky Brains. History Human Sciences. 2010; 23(1):79-105.

  11. Svendsen MN, Koch L. Genetics and prevention: a policy in the making. New Genet Soc. 2006;25(1):51-68.

  12. Novas C. The political economy of hope: patients' organizations, science and biovalue. BioSocieties. 2006;1(3):289-305.

  13. Bell K. Biomarkers, the molecular gaze and the transformation of cancer survivorship.BioSocieties. 2013;8:124-43.

  14. Jolie A. My Medical Choice. The New York Times. Mayo 14 de 2013:25. Acceso: 10 Oct 2015. Disponible en: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/14/opinion/mymedical- choice.html

  15. Hidalgo A, Jiménez G. Bases genómicas del cáncer de mama: avances hacia la medicina personalizada. Salud Pública Méx. 2009;51(Supl 2):197-207.

  16. Narod SA. Screening for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations in breast cancer patients from mexico: the public health perspective. Salud Pública Méx. 2009;51(Supl. 2):191-6.

  17. Krupar SH. The biopsic adventures of mammary glam: breast cancer detection and the practice of cancer glamor. Soc Semiotics. 2012;22(1):47-82.

  18. Klawiter R. The biopolitics of breast cancer: Cultures of disease and activism. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press; 2008.

  19. Rose N. Molecular Biopolitics, Somatic Ethics and the Spirit of Biocapital Social. Theory Health. 2007;5(1):3-29.

  20. Polzer J, Robertson A. Seeing and knowing in twenty first century genetic medicine: the clinical pedigree as epistemological tool and hybrid risk technique. New Genet Soc. 2010;29(2):133-147.

  21. Gibbon S. Re-Examining Geneticization: Family Trees in Breast Cancer Genetics. Science Culture. 2002;11:4:429-57.

  22. Gibson A. Lee C, Crabb SH. Take ownership of your condition: Australian women's health and risk talk in relation to their experiences of breast cáncer. Health, Risk Soc. 2015;17(2): 132-148.

  23. Albada A, Dulmen S, Spreeuwenberg P, Ausems M. Follow-up effects of a tailored pre-counseling website with question prompt in breast cancer genetic counseling. Patient Educ Counsel. 2015;98(1):69-76.

  24. Samson A. Living with the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genetic mutation: Learning how to adapt to a virtual chronic illness. Psychol, Health Med. 2014;19(1):103-14.

  25. Ehlers N. Risking Safety: breast cancer, prognosis, and the strategic enterprise of life. J Med Human. 2014;1:1-14.

  26. Jeffers L, Morrison PJ, McCaughan E, Fitzsimons D. Maximising survival: the main concern of women with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer who undergo genetic testing for BRCA1/2. Eur J Oncol Nur. 2014;18:411-18.

  27. Hesse-Biber S. The genetic testing experience of BRCA-positive women: deciding between surveillance and surgery. Qual Health Res. 2014;24(6):773-89.

  28. Good D. American oncology and the discourse on hope. Cul, Med Psy. 1990;14:59-79.

  29. Petersen A, Seear K. Technologies of hope: techniques of the online advertising of stem cell treatments. New Genet Soc. 2011;30(4):329-46.

  30. Petersen A, Davis M, Fraser S, Lindsay J. Healthy living and citizenship: an overview. Crit Public Health. 2010;20(4):391-400.

  31. Pezzullo PC. Resisting "national breast cancer awareness month": the rhetoric of counterpublics and their cultural performances. Quart J Speech. 2003;89(4):345-65.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com