Move over Pregnant Robot and iOB, there's a new piece of technology dehumanising pregnancy and birth: PreVue.
 |
| Image source |
Tuvie: design of the future has this to say:
"Melody Shiue, an industrial designer of the University of New South Wales has designed a product called, PreVue. It is an e-textile based device that employs latest stretchable display technology over the abdominal region, letting other family members to connect with the fetus in its context. Not only PreVue gives you the chance for interacting and watching the baby’s growth inside, it as well serves as a tool to understand the personality of the baby. You can see the baby rolling, snoozing, yawning and smiling, bringing you closer until the day it finally lies into your arms." (Emphasis added)
It is the devices' ability to facilitate interaction between the outside world and the unborn child that makes it most marketable. But the unsaid truth is that the mother does not need this device at all, especially not to facilitate her interaction and connection with her child. Bonding between mother and unborn child is literally sensational: it is felt. It is a lived experience, not something viewed on a screen.
As is the case with most reproductive technologies, the woman is primarily understood to be little more than an incubator, referred in the above extract as the baby's "context." Mother is little more than the fundamentally flawed flesh incubator that can't be trusted to grow (or "deliver") a baby unless someone watches her closely, ever ready to intervene with man-made tools. This use of language demonstrates the degree to which this sort of technology dehumanises women. Women are "context" for the foetus, who is the real human of concern to Obstetrians. PreVue makes the foetus all the more accessible to doctors. While some might argue this is great for foetal medicine, it's another step back for women's rights, especially considering woman is but a context (for more on this argument refer to my post about the pregnant robot and medicalisation of reproduction paper).
While increased monitoring of the in-utero baby may initially sound like it will ensure healthier neonatal outcomes, this has not been the case for other forms of foetal monitoring device. In fact, studies have shown just the opposite is true of routine use of ultrasounds and electronic foetal monitors. These technologies have been overused and led to increased rates of unnecessary intervention, thus placing babies in greater harm than had they been left unmonitored (see my post about ultrasounds, see also here, here and here).
I also have serious concerns about the claim that PreVue enables parents to watch their child's personality in-utero. Already ultrasounds are used by parents to determine the sex of their child, so that they can commence gender stereotyping long before birth. These technologies make allowing a child to be her be her unique self difficult, because before she's even born Mum and Dad have formed clear pictures of what they expect her to be.
Even if you choose to ignore the intrusion into the baby's world, this device is made possible only through the exploitation of fear :
"...[The device] paves way for fetal-maternal bonding in order to keep the mothers in an optimistic state of mind. Establishing early bonding essentially sustains the maternal relationship post-birth and helps delivering a healthy child." (Emphasis added)
The underlying premise of statements like these is: be afraid, you're probably not doing enough to ensure an healthy outcome, buy this technology for peace of mind. But why on earth would a pregnant woman not be optimistic? Her body is creating life! It's a very exciting and joyful time...unless she takes on fearmongering of this nature.
There is also the issue of pacification inherent to using such a technology. When electronic foetal monitoring and ultrasounds are performed on women's bodies, women are required to sit or lie and be still in order to get the best readings. While drawings of the device suggest mothers will be able to live a normal life while using PreVue, it is more likely that their movement will be greatly restricted. If, as is suggested this technology is going to be used for parental bonding we can assume the creator expects PreVue to be purchased privately and kept in the home, thus increasing the extent of ultrasound usage and therefore the pacification of mothers.
We have to pause at this moment in history to ask "where does this technology lead us?" To answer, reflect on where routinely used ultrasound technology of today has already taken us. Once upon a time the relationship between the world and the unborn baby was felt entirely by the mother. Pregnancy was a time of going inward and focusing on one's feelings and sensations. It was 40 weeks (give or take) to nurutre one's own instincts as well as a child. When baby came, mother already had some sense of her own instincts and how to trust them as she entered the world of motherhood. These days many Western women are too scared to form an attachment to their child until a scan, and we have male-dominated Obstetrics to thank for this "seeing is believing" relationship between mother and baby.
Ultimately the genius of this device is how it removes the unforgivably rude mounds of flesh and muscle that stand between a father and his child: "The father also gets an opportunity to watch the current activity of his child and participate in the process of bonding."
 |
| Image source |
Never mind that a father can bond with his baby just fine by having a relationship with his child's mother. But there has been no mention of the fact that this technology can also ensure a woman's mother in law gets to see the baby, or her work colleagues. Imagine the possibilities! PreVue enables belly-rubs by random strangers on the street to go to a whole new level! That will never happen, you say? Test-tube babies was a crazy sci-fi dream once upon a time, and I'd wager no one expected ultrasounds to be performed in 99% of Australian pregnancies when it was first created in the 1950s.
It is worth considering that an unborn baby's privacy may not be an inconvenience to Obstetricians, fathers and mothers in law, but in fact a significant factor contributing to the child's well-being. Attempts to create an artificial uterus, thus far, have failed because scientists cannot recreate the unique and complex organ that naturally exists within women. Foetuses need a certain degree of lightness and darkness, movement and stillness, quiet and sound in order to grow healthily (for more see here).
Finally, putting aside the dehumanisation of women, soaring rates of unnecessary intervention, and pregnancies as public property, the well documented dangers of ultrasounds and dopplers should be enough to toss this idea into the "too unethical" basket.
If we knew that the few ultrasounds given prior to 1995 led to impaired brain function and retarded foetal growth then, what might become of the unborn babies exposed to ultrasounds repeatedly and extensively care of PreVue?
