References
  1. Paul DB Controlling Human Heredity. 1865 to the Present.Amherst, New York: Humanity Books;1995.
  2. Dodier N. Leçons politiques de l’épidémie de sida. Paris: EHESS;2003.
  3. Reubi D. The human capacity to reflect and decide: Bioethics and the reconfiguration of the research subject in the British biomedical sciences. Social Studies of Science 2012 42:348–368.
  4. Mol A. The logic of care: Health and the problem of patient choice. New York: Routledge;2008
  5. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence [NICE]. NICE clinical guideline 62. Antenatal care: Routine care for the healthy pregnant woman 2008.
  6. Vassy C. De l’innovation biomédicale à la pratique de masse: Le dépistage prénatal de la trisomie 21 en Angleterre et en France. Sciences Sociales et Santé 2011 29:5-32.
  7. Agence de la Biomédecine (2016). Centres pluridisciplinaires de diagnostic prénatal 2015 [online]. Available at: https://www.agence-biomedecine.fr/annexes/bilan2016/donnees/diag-prenat/01-diag_prenat/synthese.htm.
  8. National Health Service. Fetal Anomaly Screening Programme: Screening standards data report 1 April 2016 to 31 March 2017 [online]. Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/787093/Fetal_Anomaly_Screening_Programme_Standards_Data_Report_2016-17_.pdf (Accessed: 29 September 2019).
  9. Getz L, Kirkengen AL. Ultrasound screening in pregnancy: Advancing technology, soft markers for fetal chromosomal aberrations, and unacknowledged ethical dilemmas. Social Science & Medicine 200356 :2045-2057.
  10. Akolekar R, Beta J, Picciarelli G, Ogilvie C, D’Antonio F. Procedure‐related risk of miscarriage following amniocentesis and chorionic villus sampling: A systematic review and meta‐analysis. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology 2015 45:16-26.
  11. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Termination of pregnancy for fetal abnormality in England, Scotland and Wales. Report of a working party [online]; 2010. Available at: https://www.rcog.org.uk/globalassets/documents/guidelines/terminationpregnancyreport18may2010.pdf. (Accessed: 20 September 2018).
  12. Law n° 2011-814 of 7 July 2011 relating to bioethics (JORF n°0157 du 8 juillet 2011)
  13. Thomas G. An Elephant in the Consultation Room? Configuring Down Syndrome in British Antenatal Care. Medical Anthropology Quarterly 2016 30:238–258.
  14. Garcia E, Timmermans DR, van Leeuwen E. The impact of ethical beliefs on decisions about prenatal screening tests: Searching for justification. Social Science & Medicine 2008 66:53–764.
  15. Ahmed S, Bryant LD, Tizro Z, Shickle D. Interpretations of informed choice in antenatal screening: A cross-cultural, Q-methodology study. Social Science & Medicine 2012 74:997-1004.
  16. Markens S, Browner CH, Preloran M. Interrogating the dynamics between power, knowledge and pregnant bodies in amniocentesis decision making. Sociology of Health & Illness 2010 32:37–56.
  17. Williams C, Alderson P, Farsides B. Is nondirectiveness possible within the context of antenatal screening and testing? Social Science & Medicine 2002 54:339–347.
  18. Schwennesen N, Svendsen MN, Koch L. Beyond informed choice: Prenatal risk assessment, decision-making and trust. Clinical Ethics 2010 5:207-216.
  19. Clarke A. Is non-directive genetic counselling possible? The Lancet 1991 338:898-1001.
  20. Dormandy E, Marteau TM. Uptake of a prenatal screening test: The role of healthcare professionals’ attitudes towards the test. Prenatal Diagnosis 2004 24:864-868.
  21. Rapp R. Testing the women, testing the fetus. The social impact of amniocentesis in America. New York: Routledge;2000.
  22. Wild K, Maypilama EL, Kildea S, Boyle J, Barclay L., Rumbold A. ‘Give us the full story’: Overcoming the challenges to achieving informed choice about fetal anomaly screening in Australian Aboriginal communities. Social Science & Medicine 2013 98:351-360.
  23. Hunt LM, Castaneda H, de Voogd K. Do notions of risk inform patient choice? Lessons from a study of prenatal genetic counselling. Medical Anthropology 2006 25:193–219.
  24. Schwennesen N, Koch L. Representing and intervening: ‘Doing’ good care in first trimester prenatal knowledge production and decision-making. Sociology of Health and Illness 2012 34:283–298.
  25. Goffman E. Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press;1974.
  26. Corbin J, Strauss A. Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing Grounded Theory. London: Sage Publication;1998.
  27. Austin JL How to do Things with Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press;1962.
  28. Dodier N, Motlow D. The conventional foundations of action. Elements of a sociological pragmatics. Réseaux. The French Journal of Communication 1995 3:145-166.
  29. Quill TE, Cassel CK. Nonabandonment: A central obligation of physicians. Annuals of Internal Medicine 1995 122:368-374.
  30. Dodier N. Expert medical decisions in occupational medicine: a sociological analysis of medical judgment. Sociology of Health and Illness 1994 16:489-514.
  31. Clarke A. The evolving concept of non-directiveness in genetic counselling. In Petermann HI, Harper PS, Doetz S (eds) History of Human Genetics. Aspects of Its Development and Global Perspectives. Cham, Switzerland: Springer;2017:541-566.
  32. Scott A, Le Galès P. A British bureaucratic revolution? Autonomy without control or “Freer actors more rules”. English Annual selection, Revue Française de Sociologie 2010 51:119-146.
  33. Ville I. Prenatal diagnosis in France: Between regulation of practices and professional autonomy. Medical History 2019 3:209-229.
.