Pregnant Women\u27s perceptions of exposure to brominated flame retardants

Background: Recent media reports on human studies associating brominated flame retardants (BFRs) in household products in pregnancy with urogenital anomalies in boys and endocrine disruption in both sexes. We sought to explore the perceptions of pregnant women of brominated flame retardant (BFR) exposure, in light of recent media reports on the adverse health effects of BFR exposure prenatally. Methods: Pregnant women were recruited for interviews through posters and pamphlets in prenatal clinics, prenatal fairs and community centres. Interviews were audiotaped and transcribed verbatim for Charmaz-based qualitative analysis supported by NVIVO 10™. Results: Theoretical sufficiency was reached after analyzing the interviews of 23 pregnant women. Themes co-constructed were: I-Lack of Awareness of BFRs; II-Factors Influencing BFR Exposure; III-Responsibility; IV-Informed Choice. Almost all participants felt it was difficult to make informed choices to avoid BFRs, and wanted communication from clinicians and regulation from governments regarding decreasing BFR exposure. Conclusion: Pregnant women in Canada may be unaware of the potential risks of exposure to BFRs. Professional organizations and governments should further study risk associated with BFR exposure in pregnancy and provide educational materials for pregnant women and clinicians regarding BFR exposure

The Moral of the Tale: Stories, Trust, and Public Engagement with Clinical Ethics via Radio and Theatre.

Trust is frequently discussed with reference to the professional-patient relationship. However, trust is less explored in relation to the ways in which understanding of, and responses to, questions of ethics are discussed by both the "public" and "experts." Public engagement activity in healthcare ethics may invoke "trust" in analysing a moral question or problem but less frequently conceives of trust as integral to "public engagement" itself. This paper explores the relationship between trust and the ways in which questions of healthcare ethics are identified and negotiated by both "experts" and the public. Drawing on two examples from the author's "public engagement" work-a radio programme for the British Broadcasting Corporation and work with a playwright and theatre-the paper interrogates the ways in which "public engagement" is often characterized. The author argues that the common approach to public engagement in questions of ethics is unhelpfully constrained by a systemic disposition which continues to privilege the professional or expert voice at the expense of meaningful exchange and dialogue. By creating space for novel interactions between the "expert" and the "public," authentic engagement is achieved that enables not only the participants to flourish but also contributes to trust itself