Search

This paper examines a discrete set of issues pertaining to the constitution of addiction in law. Based on qualitative interviews undertaken with lawyers in Australia and Canada, I examine how addiction figures in lawyers' daily practice. Drawing on ideas from science and technology studies scholars Sheila Jasanoff, Michael Lynch and Bruno Latour, and building on recent research I undertook on legal addiction veridiction, I explore the constitution of addiction 'facts' in law. I examine how and when lawyers claim to make decisions about addiction in the course of their legal practice. Lawyers report playing a central role in the making of decisions about addiction, at multiple stages of the legal process including: before taking cases on, while running cases in court, and while negotiating and/or settling cases. I argue that these decisions can be properly described as 'quasi-expert' determinations with important parallels to scientific, technological and medical claims often made in legal settings by more conventional 'expert witnesses'. I call these 'quasi-expert' decisions because they are decisions of the kind that might be assumed to be the purview of scientific or medical experts and because they have tangible implications for clients. Lawyers uniquely constitute addiction in unique ways, drawing on a combination of factors, including their own experience with and observations about addiction, the experiences of family members who have experienced alcohol and other drug problems, relevant legal concepts and frameworks, popular and scientific claims about addiction, emotions and values, including the gender politics of alcohol and other drug addiction. These addiction 'facts' can have a range of material and discursive effects, including potentially adverse implications for people characterised as 'addicts'. I conclude the paper with a discussion of some implications of these practices, and with reflections on how we might address these issues in future research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To identify what factors affect women's' decisions to delay childbearing, and to explore women's' experiences and their perceptions of associated risks. Design: Systematic procedures were used for search strategy, study selection, data extraction and analysis. Findings were synthesised using an approach developed from meta-ethnography. Data sources: We included qualitative papers, not confined to geographical area (1980–2009). Databases included CINAHL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycInfo, ASSIA, MIDIRS, British Nursing Index and the National Research Register. We selected qualitative empirical studies exploring the views and experiences of women of advanced maternal age who were childless or primigravidae with a singleton pregnancy or primiparous. Review methods: Twelve papers fulfilled the selection criteria and were included for synthesis. Results: Women appear to face an issue of ‘informed and uninformed decision making’; those who believe they are informed but may not be, those who are not informed and find out they are at risk once pregnant, and those who are well informed but choose to delay pregnancy anyway. Maternity services could provide information to enable informed choice regarding timing of childbearing. Conclusions: Health professionals need to be mindful of the fact that women delay childbearing for various reasons. A strategy of pre-conception education may be beneficial in informing childbearing decisions. Obstetricians and midwives should be sensitive to the fact that women may not be aware of all the risks associated with delayed childbearing. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]