the Female Body GOVERNING

44
paula saukko
Biosociality also carries the promise of democratizing medicine in
that individuals form identities based on biology, such as a genetic
susceptibility, and mobilize to advance their interests in relation to
clinicians and other experts. Online health groups for individuals with
genetic conditions are examples of biosociality. However, biosociality
may also come close to sociobiology in that in its urging of people to
use genetic information to “be all that they can be,” it may subtly shift
the responsibility for health to individuals, naturalizing inequalities,
arguing they refl ect the “choices” people make about taking care, or not
taking care, of themselves (Petersen & Bunton, 2002). Lay communication
and activism also not only represent the “lifeworld,” but are often
infused with biomedical knowledge (e.g. Richardson, 2003) and may fuel
self-medicalization (Petersen, 2003). As discussed by Rapp, Heath, and
Taussig (2001) biosociality often has both “resistant” and “dominant”
aspects.
The following analysis refl ects on the pros and cons of online genetic
support groups in light of the social scientifi c discussions on the contradictions
of biosociality and personalized medicine, and it investigates the
gendered nature of the discussion. Statements about the psychological
and social implications of genetics are often general. Yet, these technologies
typically address issues, such as reproduction, families, and
lifestyle, which are traditionally managed by women. Women have also
been found to seek genetic testing to help their children and extended
families (Hallowell, 1999), participants in genetic interest groups are
often women (see Rapp et al., 2001, p. 398) and women are more likely
to seek information on health online and participate in online health
groups (Seale, 2006). My other goal in this chapter is to examine the
specifi c gendered contradictions of preventive genetics in the wider
context of personalized medicine.
Thrombophilia
Before moving to the analysis of the online discussion, a few words are
in order about thrombophilia. In contrast with rare monogenic conditions,
such as Huntington’s disease, which are more or less caused by
a single gene alteration, thrombophilia is a common, complex polygenic
susceptibility. This means that around one in 25 Caucasian individuals
have the most common allele (FVL) that predisposes to DVT. Multiple
genetic (various markers), biological (age), and environmental factors
(taking estrogen, surgery, pregnancy, immobility, smoking, and
obesity) also contribute to the development of DVT. The risk of DVT
associated with FVL is low for healthy individuals (Middledorp et al.,