Parenting, between radicalism and ideology

Main Article Content

Linda Alfano
Liliana Lorettu
Roberta Monteleone
Rosagemma Ciliberti

Keywords

new family forms, parenting, child adjustment, assisted reproductive technology, gender role, culture, gender stereotypes, parental role.

Abstract

As has been the case for several years in many countries, in Italy, new continuing forms of family composition, as well as increasingly complex forms of parenting, are sharply taking root.


These innovations are often accompanied by criticisms and (pre)conceptions that (in)form our traditional and consolidated way of thinking about the family.


Issues related to the right of the child to pursue his or her best interests and the possible functioning of the family constellations with non-genetic links are feeding important ethical questions.


The careful analysis of scientific literature suggests freeing oneself from ideological approaches to base assessments and choices on the data available within psychological studies on the phenomenon.


The commitment of professionals working with children is to welcome the complexity of today’s families without stigmatizing, pathologizing, or ideologizing.

Abstract 17 | PDF Downloads 16

References

1. Imrie S, Golombok S. Impact of New Family Forms on Parenting and Child Development. Ann Rev Dev Psychol 2020; 2:295–316.
2. Brighouse H, Swift A. Family Values: The Ethics of Parent-Child Relationships. New Jersey: Princeton University Press; 2014.
3. Betzler M, Löschke J. New Developments in Family Ethics: An Introduction, J Moral Philos 2016; 13(6):641–51.
4. Neculaesei AN. Culture and gender role differences. Cross-Cultural Management 2015; 1(7):31–5
5. Biggio G, Sirigu D, Tagliagambe S. Metamorfosi. Cervello in divenire, benessere psicofisco e nuove strategie terapetiche. Milano: Mimesi; 2019.
6. Rose R. Linee di vita. La biologia oltre il determinismo. Milano: Garzanti; 2001.
7. Rose H, Rose S. Geni, cellule e cervelli. Speranze e delusioni della nuova biologia. Torino: Codice; 2013.
8. Baroni L. Genitorialità al plurale. Una sfida possibile? Giornale Italiano di Psicologia 2016; 43(1-2):85–9.
9. Interview with Kenneth Clark, conducted by Blackside, Inc. on November 4, 1985, for Eyes on the Prize: America’s Civil Rights Years (1954-1965). Washington University Libraries, Film and Media Archive, Henry Hampton Collection. http://repository.wustl.edu/downloads/f4752j543
10. Fiske ST, Cuddy AJ, Peter G, Xu J. A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition: Correction to Fiske et al. (2002). J Pers Soc Psychol2019; 82(6):878–902.
11. Morabito C. La mente nel cervello. Un'introduzione storica alla neuropsicologia cognitiva. Roma: Laterza; 2008.
12. Baumann Z. Modernità liquida. Roma: Laterza; 2011.
13. Presidenza del Consiglio. Dipartimento per le Pari Opportunità. ISTAT. Gli stereotipi sui ruoli di genere e l’immagine sociale della violenza sessuale anno 2018. 25 Novembre 2019. Available from: https://www.istat.it/it/files/2019/11/Report-stereotipi-di-genere.pdf
14. Golombok S. Parenting in new family forms. Curr Opin Psychol 2017; 15:76–80.
15. Golombok S. The psychological wellbeing of ART children: what have we learned from 40 years of research? Reprod Biomed Online 2020; 41(4):743–46.
16. Molinelli A, Bonsignore A, Rocca G, Ciliberti R. Medical treatment and patient decisional power: The Italian state of the art. Minerva Med 2009; 100(5):429–34.
17. Ciliberti R, Alfano L, Baldelli I, De Stefano, Bonsignore A. Self-determination, healthcare treatment and minors in Italian clinical practice: ethical, psychological, juridical and medical-legal profiles Acta Biomed 2018; 89(1):34–40.
18. Purdy L. Women's reproductive autonomy: medicalisation and beyond. J Med Ethics 2006; 32(5):287–91.
19. Patuzzo S, Goracci G, Gasperini L, Ciliberti, R. 3D Bioprinting Technology: Scientific Aspects and Ethical Issues. Sci Eng Ethics 2018; 24(2):335–48.
20. Corte Cost. 162/2014. www.cortecostituzionale.it
21. Corte Cost. 272/2017. www.cortecostituzionale.it
22. Corte Cost. 230/2020. www.cortecostituzionale.ita
23. Corte Cost. 32/2021. www.cortecostituzionale.it
24. Corte Cost. 33/2021. www.cortecostituzionale.it
25. Comitato Nazionale di Bioetica. Conoscere le proprie origini biologiche nella procreazione medicalmente assistita eterologa 25 novembre 2011. bioetica.governo.it/it/pareri/pareri-e-risposte/conoscere-le-proprie-origini-biologiche-nella-procreazione-medicalmente-assistita-eterologa/.
26. Battistuzzi L, Ciliberti R, Forzano F, De Stefano F. Regulating the communication of genetic risk information: The Italian legal approach to questions of confidentiality and disclosure. Clin Genet 2012; 82(3):205–9.
27. Battistuzzi L, Ciliberti R, Bruno W, Turchetti D, Varesco L, De Stefano F. Communication of clinically useful next-generation sequencing results to at-risk relatives of deceased research participants: Toward active disclosure?. J Clin Oncol 2013; 31(32):4164–5.

Most read articles by the same author(s)

1 2 > >>