Hyde Abbey
UCD School of Nursing, Midwifery and Health Systems, Health Sciences Centre, University College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland.
Int J Nurs Stud. 2007 Feb;44(2):315-25. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2006.03.020. Epub 2006 Jun 8.
In this article, a critique of cancer nursing literature on the issue of sexuality is presented, with particular reference to literature on cancers common to women. The paper begins with an account of two competing perspectives on sexuality. The first is a version of sexuality rooted in sexology, underpinned by biomedical science that makes a claim to having identified 'normal' sexuality. The second is a version of sexuality developed within feminist scholarship that tends to reject biological determinism as a basis for understanding sexuality, instead favouring constructionist perspectives, with the socio-political context of sexual relations problematised. The focus of the article then shifts to cancer nursing literature on sexuality that deals primarily with cancers common to women, to appraise the extent to which either of the above perspectives on sexuality is invoked. Within this body of nursing knowledge, I argue that there has largely been an uncritical endorsement of biomedical constructions of sexuality, rooted in orthodox sexology, with a dominant focus on sexual functioning and on sexual rehabilitation for women with cancer. Moreover, in this knowledge base, phallocentric heterosexuality over and above other forms of sexual expression is privileged, and the socio-political context of unequal gender power relations is largely excluded. References to the social sphere as a dimension of nursing care are focused almost exclusively on maintaining normality, and reflect the emphasis on functional restoration. The largely individualistic, uncritical and biocentric emphasis in this literature may serve inadvertently to reinforce and maintain existing gender inequalities in heterosexual relationships. Finally, I consider the difficulties for oncology nurses in dealing with contradictory truth claims or conventional wisdoms about sexuality from the disparate disciplines of which holism is comprised.
本文对癌症护理文献中有关性取向的问题进行了批判,特别提及了关于女性常见癌症的文献。文章开篇阐述了两种相互竞争的性取向观点。第一种是根植于性学的性取向观点,以生物医学科学为支撑,宣称已识别出“正常”的性取向。第二种是在女性主义学术研究中发展起来的性取向观点,倾向于摒弃将生物决定论作为理解性取向的基础,转而支持建构主义观点,将性关系的社会政治背景问题化。接着,文章的重点转向主要涉及女性常见癌症的癌症护理文献中有关性取向的内容,以评估上述两种性取向观点在其中被引用的程度。在这一护理知识体系中,我认为,很大程度上存在对根植于正统性学的生物医学性取向建构的不加批判的认可,主要聚焦于性功能以及癌症女性的性康复。此外,在这个知识基础中,以男性为中心的异性恋相较于其他形式的性表达具有特权地位,不平等的性别权力关系的社会政治背景在很大程度上被排除在外。将社会领域作为护理关怀的一个维度的提及几乎完全集中在维持常态上,反映出对功能恢复的强调。该文献中很大程度上个人主义、不加批判且以生物为中心的重点内容可能会无意间强化并维持异性恋关系中现有的性别不平等。最后,我思考了肿瘤护理人员在处理来自构成整体论的不同学科的关于性取向的相互矛盾的真理主张或传统观念时所面临的困难。