Search

In recent years, claims about children's developing brains have become central to the formation of child health and welfare policies in England. While these policies assert that they are based on neuro-scientific discoveries, their relationship to neuroscience itself has been debated. However, what is clear is that they portray a particular understanding of children and childhood, one that is marked by a lack of acknowledgment of child personhood. Using an analysis of key government-commissioned reports and additional advocacy documents, this article illustrates the ways that the mind of the child is reduced to the brain, and this brain comes to represent the child. It is argued that a highly reductionist and limiting construction of the child is produced, alongside the idea that parenting is the main factor in child development. It is concluded that this focus on children's brains, with its accompanying deterministic perspective on parenting, overlooks children's embodied lives and this has implications for the design of children's health and welfare services., (© 2015 The Authors. Sociology of Health & Illness © 2015 Foundation for the Sociology of Health & Illness/John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

There is a long history of regarding marginalised groups as unfit to parent and of eugenic policies targeting those with 'undesirable' bodily conditions or behaviours. This is part of a broader pattern of stratified reproduction – structural conditions that enable or discourage certain groups from reproducing – that often brings about and exacerbates injustices. This paper critically assesses the US and UK social and medical literature on applying pressure to marginalised groups, or those who have behaved 'irresponsibly', to use long-acting reversible contraception (LARC). Targeting young people for LARC fails to recognise that social inequality is the context for teenage pregnancy, not the result of it. Provider pressure on women of colour to use LARC is linked to institutional racism, whilst policy for those with physical and intellectual disabilities is shaped by disability discrimination. Other groups to be targeted include so-called 'welfare mothers', substance users, those who have had children put into care and offenders. Particularly controversial are cases in which LARC has been ordered by courts. LARC policy incorporating these kind of discriminatory practices needs to stop; future policy should focus on person-centred care that bolsters reproductive justice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article discusses the findings of a study tracing the incorporation of claims about infant brain development into English family policy as part of the longer term development of a ‘parent training’, early intervention agenda. The main focus is on the ways in which the deployment of neuroscientific discourse in family policy creates the basis for a new governmental oversight of parents. We argue that advocacy of ‘early intervention’, in particular that which deploys the authority of ‘the neuroscience’, places parents at the centre of the policy stage but simultaneously demotes and marginalises them. So we ask, what becomes of the parent when politically and culturally, the child is spoken of as infinitely and permanently neurologically vulnerable to parental influence? In particular, the policy focus on parental emotions and their impact on infant brain development indicates that this represents a biologisation of ‘therapeutic’ governance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]