Reproductive choices and informed consent: Fetal interests, women's identity, and relational autonomy

American Journal of Law and Medicine

Volumn 37, Issue 4, 2011, Pages 567-623

  Laufer Ukeles, Pamela ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF DAYTON   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANIMAL EMBRYO; ARTICLE; CRYOPRESERVATION; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; HUMAN; INDUCED ABORTION; INFERTILITY THERAPY; INFORMED CONSENT; LABOR; LEGAL ASPECT; PERSONAL AUTONOMY; PREGNANCY; WOMEN'S HEALTH;

ABORTION, INDUCED; CHOICE BEHAVIOR; CRYOPRESERVATION; DECISION MAKING; EMBRYO, MAMMALIAN; FEMALE; HUMANS; INFORMED CONSENT; LABOR, OBSTETRIC; PERSONAL AUTONOMY; PREGNANCY; REPRODUCTIVE TECHNIQUES, ASSISTED; WOMEN'S HEALTH;

EID: 84855772710     PISSN: 00988588     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/009885881103700403     Document Type: Article

References (121)

1. Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438, 453 (1972)
2. Planned Parenthood of Se. Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 851 (1992)
3. Carey v. Population Servs. Int'l, 431 U.S. 678, 684 (1977)
4. Sonia M. Suter, The "Repugnance" Lens of Gonzales v. Carhart and Other Theories of Reproductive Rights: Evaluating Advanced Reproductive Technologies, 76 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 1514, 1518-19 (2008).
5. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942)
6. Amy F. Cohen, The Midwifery Stalemate and Childbirth Choice: Recognizing Mothers-to- Be as the Best Late Pregnancy Decisionmakers, 80 IND. L.J. 849, 850 (2005);
7. Dawn E. Johnson, Shared Interests: Promoting Healthy Births Without Sacrificing Women's Liberty, 43 HASTINGS L.J. 569, 607-08 (1992).
8. June Carbone & Naomi Cahn, Embryo Fundamentalism, 18 WM. & MARY BILL RTS. J. 1015, 1019 (2010);
9. Theresa Glennon, Regulation of Reproductive Decision-Making, in REGULATING AUTONOMY: SEX, REPRODUCTION AND FAMILY 148, 152
10. NAOMI R. CAHN, TEST TUBE FAMILIES: WHY THE FERTILITY MARKET NEEDS LEGAL REGULATION l (2009)
11. Planned Parenthood of Se. Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 851 (1992).
12. CHARLES P. KINDREGAN, JR. & MAUREEN MCBRIEN, ASSISTED REPRODUCTIVE TECHNOLOGY: A LAWYER'S GUIDE TO EMERGING LAW AND SCIENCE (2006),
13. Melinda Henne & M. Kate Bundorf, Insurance Mandates and Trends in Infertility Treatments, 89 FERTILITY & STERILITY 66 (2007))
14. David Adamson, Regulation of Assisted Reproductive Technologies in the United States, 39 FAM. L.Q. 727, 731 (2006)
15. John Hart Ely, The Wages of Crying Wolf: A Comment on Roe v. Wade, 82 YALE L.J. 920 (1973);
16. Ann MacLean Massie, Regulating Choice: A Constitutional Law Response to Professor John A. Robertson's Children of Choice, 52 WASH. & LEE L. REV. 135, 151 (1995);
17. Radhika Rao, Constitutional Misconceptions, 93 MICH. L. REV. 1473, 1489-97 (1995);
18. Reva B. Siegel, Dignity and the Politics of Protection: Abortion Restrictions Under Casey/Carhart, 117 YALE L.J. 1694, 1696-98 (2008);
19. Michele Goodwin, A View from the Cradle: Tort Law and Private Regulation of Assisted Reproduction, 59 EMORY L.J. 1039, 1088-98 (2010)
20. Maya Manian, The Irrational Woman: Informed Consent and Abortion Decision- Making, 16 DUKE J. GENDER L. & POL'Y 223,239 (2009).
21. Marshall B. Kapp, Informed Consent and Abortion, 1993 Wis. L. REV. 619, 622 (1993);
22. Angela Thachuk, Midwifery, Informed Choice, and Reproductive Autonomy: A Relational Approach, 17 FEMINISM & PSYCHOL. 39,42-43 (2007).
23. Kathleen G. Chewning, Planned Parenthood Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota v. Rounds: The Journey to Protect Women's Mental Health with Relevant, Truthful and Not Misleading Information in Informed Consent Abortion Statutes, 3 CHARLESTON L. REV. 601 (2009);
24. Whitney D. Pile, The Right to Remain Silent: A First Amendment Analysis of Abortion Informed Consent Laws, 73 Mo. L. REV. 243 (2008).
25. Nancy K. Kubasek, Legislative Approaches to Reducing the Hegemony of the Priestly Model of Medicine, 4 MICH. J. GENDER & L. 375, 375-93 (1997)
26. Lisa Napoli, The Doctrine of Informed Consent and Women: The Achievement of Equal Value and Equal Exercise of Autonomy, 4 AM. U. J. GENDER & L. 335, 339-42 (1996).
27. Jody Lynee Madeira, Common Misconceptions: Reconciling Legal Constructions of Women in the Fertility and Abortion Contexts (2010)
28. Barbara Katz Rothman, The Meanings of Choice in Reproductive Technology, in TEST TUBE WOMEN: WHAT FUTURE FOR MOTHERHOOD? 23, 31 (Rita Arditti et al. eds., 1984);
29. Jeannie Suk, The Trajectory of Trauma: Bodies and Minds of Abortion Discourse, 110 COLUM. L. REV. 1193, 1194-96 (2010);
30. Ellen Waldman, Disputing Over Embryos: Of Contracts and Consents, 32 ARIZ. ST. L.J. 897, 923-24 (2000);
31. Sylvia A. Law, Childbirth: An Opportunity for Choice that Should Be Supported, 32 N.Y.U. REV. L. & SOC. CHANGE 345, 364-66 (2008)
32. Robin West, The Nature of the Right to an Abortion: A Commentary on Professor Brownstein 's Analysis of Casey, 45 HASTINGS L.J. 961 (1994).
33. Carl E. Schneider, Some Realism About Informed Consent, 145 J. LABORATORY & CLINICAL MED. 289, 289-91 (2005) (Pubitemid 40835879)
34. DAN B. DOBBS, THE LAW OF TORTS 655 (2000);
35. John Duncan et al., Using Tort Law to Secure Patient Dignity, TRIAL, Oct. 2004, at 42, 47.
36. Woolley v. Henderson, 418 A.2d 1123, 1129-30 (Me. 1980)
37. Andrew L. Merritt, Damages for Emotional Distress in Fraud Litigation: Dignitary Torts in a Commercial Society, 42 VAND. L. REV. 1, 21-23 (1989).
38. Janet Dolgin, The Legal Development of the Informed Consent Doctrine: Past and Present, CAMBRIDGE Q. HEALTHCARE ETHICS 97, 97 (2010).
39. Jay Katz, Informed Consent: Ethical and Legal Issues, in ETHICAL ISSUES IN MODERN MEDICINE 87 passim (John D. Arras & Bonnie Steinbock eds., 1995).
40. Robert Gatter, Informed Consent Law and the Forgotten Duty of Physician Inquiry, 31 LOY. U. Cm. L.J. 557, 558 (2000).
41. Salgo v. Leland Stanford Jr. Univ. Bd. of Trs., 317 P.2d 170, 181
42. Judith F. Daar, Assisted Reproductive Technologies and the Pregnancy Process: Developing an Equality Model to Protect Reproductive Liberties, 25 AM. J.L. & MED. 455, 455 (1999)
43. Derek Morgan, Frameworks of Analysis for Feminisms' Accounts of Reproductive Technology, in FEMINIST PERSPECTIVE ON HEALTH CARE LAW 192, 202
44. Stephanie Saul, Birth of Octuplets Puts Focus on Fertility Clinics, N.Y. TIMES, Feb. 11, 2009, at Al;
45. Stephanie Saul, Building a Baby with Few Ground Rules, N.Y. TIMES, Feb. 12, 2009, at Al;
46. Stephanie Saul, New Jersey Judge Calls Surrogate Legal Mother of Twins, N.Y. TIMES, Dec. 31, 2009, at A14.
47. Benjamin Grant Chojnacki, Pushing Back: Protecting Maternal Autonomy from the Living Room to the Delivery Room, 23 J.L. & HEALTH 45, 47-53, 76-77 (2010);
48. Pamela Laufer-Ukeles, Approaching Surrogate Motherhood: Reconsidering Difference, 26 VT. L. REV. 407 (2002)
49. Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438, 453 (1972)
50. John A. Robertson, Procreative Liberty and the Control of Conception, Pregnancy, and Childbirth, 69 VA. L. REV. 405, 434-36 (1983);
51. Judith F. Daar, Regulating Reproductive Technologies: Panacea or Paper Tiger?, 34 HOUS. L. REV. 609, 658 (1997)
52. Charles P. Kindregan & Steven H. Snyder, Clarifying the Law of ART: The New American Bar Association Model Act Governing Assisted Reproductive Technology, 42 FAM. L.Q. 203, 203-06 (2008).
53. Paula L. Manning, Baby Needs a New Set of Rules: Using Adoption Doctrine to Regulate Embryo Donation, 5 GEO. J. GENDER & L. 677, 678 (2004).
54. Katheryn D. Katz, Snowflake Adoption and Orphan Embryos: The Legal Implications of Embryos Donation, 18 WIS. WOMEN'S L.J. 179, 188-90 (2003).
55. Stephanie Saul, The Gift of Life, and Its Price, N.Y. TIMES, Oct. 10, 2009 at Al
56. Joyce A. Martin et al., Nat'l Ctr. for Health Statistics, Births: Final Data for 2004, 55 NAT'L VITAL STATS. REP., Sept. 29, 2006, at 25, available at http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr55/ nvsr55-01.pdf.
57. Elizabeth Lynch & Todd Denzen, Fertility Drugs Contribute Heavily to Multiple Births (Jan. 15, 2010), http://www.marchofdimes.com/aboutus/49267- 62811.asp.
58. Judith Lorber, Choice, Gift or Patriarchal Bargain? Women's Consent to In Vitro Fertilization in Male Infertility, in FEMINIST PERSPECTIVES IN MEDICAL ETHICS 169 (Helen Bequaert Holmes & Laura M. Purdy eds., 1992).
59. Katherine Franke, Longing for Loving, 76 FORDHAM L. REV. 2685, 2688-90 (2008)
60. Lisa C. Ikemoto, The Code of Perfect Pregnancy: At the Intersection of the Ideology of Motherhood, the Practice of Defaulting to Science, and the Interventionist Mindset of Law, 53 OHIO ST. L.J. 1205, 1252-53 (1992);
61. Daniel R. Leavy, The Maternal-Fetal Conflict: The Right of a Woman to Refuse a Cesarean Section Versus the State's Interest in Saving the Life of the Fetus, 108 W. VA. L. REV. 97, 98-99 (2005);
62. Pamala Harris, Note, Compelled Medical Treatment of Pregnant Women: The Balancing of Maternal and Fetal Rights, 49 CLEV. ST. L. REV. 133, 139-40 (2001).
63. Pemberton v. Tallahassee Mem'l Reg'l Med. Ctr. Inc., 66 F. Supp. 2d 1247, 1248-49 (N.D. Fla. 1999);
64. April L. Cherry, The Detention, Confinement, and Incarceration of Pregnant Women for the Benefit of Fetal Health, 16 COLUM. J. GENDER & L. 147, 160-62 (2007);
65. Jefferson v. Griffin Spalding City Hosp., 274 S.E.2d 457 (Ga. 1981);
66. Brady E. Hamilton et al., Nat'l Ctr. for Health Statistics, Births: Preliminary Data for 2007, 57 NAT'L VITAL STAT. REPORTS, March 18, 2009, at 3, available at http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr57/nvsr57-12.pdf.
67. Orly Goldstick et al., The Orcadian Rhythm of "Urgent" Operative Deliveries, 5 ISR. MED ASSOC. J. 564, (2003);
68. Elizabeth Feldman & Marsha Hurst, Outcomes and Procedures in Low Risk Birth: A Comparison of Hospital and Birth Center Settings, 14 BIRTH 18, 18-24 (1987).
69. Sonia M. Suter, The Routinization of Prenatal Testing, 28 AM. J.L. & MED. 233, 233-70 (2002).
70. ADRIENNE RICH, OF WOMAN BORN: MOTHERHOOD AS EXPERIENCE AND INSTITUTION 64 (1976)
71. ANN OAKLEY, THE CAPTURED WOMB: A HISTORY OF THE MEDICAL CARE OF PREGNANT WOMEN 155-86 (1984),
72. Patricia A. Kin, The Juridical Status of the Fetus: A Proposal for Legal Protection of the Unborn, 11 MlCH. L. REV. 1647 (1979),
73. Jeffrey A. Parness & Susan K. Pritchard, To Be or Not to Be: Protecting the Unborn's Potentiality of Life, 51 U. ClN. L. REV. 257 (1982)
74. Dawn Johnsen, The Creation of Fetal Rights: Conflicts with Women's Constitutional Rights to Liberty, Privacy and Equal Protection, 95 YALE L.J. 599, 625 (1986)
75. Sherry F. Colb, To Whom Do We Refer When We Speak of Obligations to "Future Generations "? Reproductive Rights and the Intergenerational Community, 77 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 1582, 1598 (2009).
76. David M. Vukadinovich, Assisted Reproductive Technology: Obtaining Informed Consent for the Commercial Cryopreservation of Embryos, 21 J. LEGAL MED. 67, 73 (2000)
77. Ken Marcus Gatter, Protecting Patient-Doctor Discourse: Informed Consent and Deliberative Autonomy, 78 OR. L. REV. 941, 943 (1999)
78. Harper Jean Tobin, Confronting Misinformation on Abortion: Informed Consent, Deference, and Fetal Pain Laws, 17 COLUM. J. GENDER & L. I l l , 141 (2008)
79. Jill Elaine Hasday, Protecting Women from Themselves: The Persistence of Mutual Benefits Arguments for Sex and Race Inequality, 84 N.Y.U. L. REV. 1464, 1466 (2009)
80. NANCY CHODROW, THE REPRODUCTION OF MOTHERING: PSYCHOANALYSIS AND THE SOCIOLOGY OF GENDER 209 (1978)
81. Planned Parenthood of Se. Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 919 (1992)
82. Susan Frelich Appleton, Doctors, Patients, and the Constitution: A Theoretical Analysis of the Physician's Role in "Private" Reproductive Decisions, 63 WASH. U. L.Q. 183, 233 (1985);
83. Rebecca Dresser, From Double Standard to Double Bind: Informed Choice in Abortion Law, 76 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 1599, 1615-17 (2008)
84. Jeremy A. Blumenthal, Abortion, Persuasion, and Emotion: Implications of Social Science Research on Emotion for Reading Casey, 83 WASH. L. REV. 1 (2008)
85. Caroline Mala Corbin, The First Amendment Right Against Compelled Listening, 89 B.U. L. REV. 939, 982-83 (2009);
86. Ben A. Rich, Prognostics in Clinical Medicine: Prophecy or Professional Responsibility?, 23 J. LEGAL MED. 297, 329-30 (2002)
87. Greg Bloche, Corporate Takeover of Teaching Hospitals, 65 S. CAL. L. REV. 1035, 1115 (1992) (discussing pro-technology bias of doctors in the context of reimbursement bias).
88. Kathleen Peters et al., Failures of Reproduction: Problematising "Success" in Assisted Reproductive Technology, 14 NURSING INQUIRY 125, 128-29 (2007)
89. Claudia Frank, 7 Want a Child!' Concerning Problems of Informed Consent in Fertility Treatment, 21 PSYCHOANALYTIC PSYCHOTHERAPY 150, 166 (2007);
90. Theresa Glennon, Choosing One: Resolving the Epidemic of Multiples in Assisted Reproduction, 55 VlLL. L. REV. 147, 183-84 (2010)
91. Mary Crossley, Infected Judgment: Legal Responses to Physician Bias, 48 VlLL. L. REV. 195, 201-05(2003).
92. BARRON H. LERNER, THE BREAST CANCER WARS 194 (2001)
93. Kathryn Abrams, Sex Wars Redux: Agency and Coercion in Feminist Legal Theory, 95 COLUM. L. REV. 304, 306 (1995);
94. Christine Littleton, Reconstructing Sexual Equality, 75 CAL. L. REV. 1279, 1316 (1987)
95. Joan Williams, Gender Wars: Selfless Women in the Republic of Choice, 66 N.Y.U. L. REV. 1559, 1561 (1991)
96. Kathryn Abrams, Cross-Dressing in the Master's Clothes, 109 YALE L.J. 745, 770 n.l 16 (2000)
97. Kathryn Abrams, Songs of Innocence and Experience, 103 YALE L.J. 1533, 1553-54 (1994)
98. JOHN STUART MILL, THE SUBJECTION OF WOMEN 22 (Edward Alexander ed., Transaction Publishers 2001) (1869);
99. Barry Lynn, "Civil Rights" Ordinances and the Attorney General's Commission: New Developments in Pornography Regulation, 21 HARV. C.R.-C.L. L. REV. 27, 125 (1986);
100. Alan Wertheimer, Consent and Sexual Relations, in THE PHILOSOPHY OF SEX (2002).
101. Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Gender and the Constitution, 44 U. ClN. L. REV. 1 (1975);
102. Joseph Tussman & Jacobus tenBroek, The Equal Protection of the Laws, 37 CALIF. L. REV. 341,344(1949).
103. Catriona Mackenzie & Natalie Stoljar, Introduction: Autonomy Reconfigured, in RELATIONAL AUTONOMY 3-31
104. Jennifer Nedelsky, Reconceiving Autonomy: Sources, Thoughts and Possibilities, 1 YALE J.L. & FEMINISM 7, 14 (1989).
105. California Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Guerra, 479 U.S. 272, 285-86 (1987);
106. Geduldig v. Aiello, 417 U.S. 484, 494-95 (1974);
107. Linda J. Krieger & Patricia N. Cooney, The Miller-Wohl Controversy: Equal Treatment, Positive Action and the Meaning of Women's Equality, 13 GOLDEN GATE U. L. REV. 513, 533-39 (1983).
108. Herma Hill Kay, Equality and Difference: A Perspective on No-Fault Divorce and Its Aftermath, 56 U. ClN. L. REV. 1, 77-89 (1987);
109. Pamela Laufer-Ukeles, Selective Recognition of Gender Difference in the Law: Revaluing the Caretaker Role, 31 HARV. J.L. & GENDER 1, 36-47 (2008)
110. Ellen Waldman & Marybeth Herald, Eyes Wide Shut: Erasing Women's Experiences From the Clinic to the Courtroom, 28 HARV. J.L. & GENDER 285, 310-24 (2005)
111. Barbara Katz Rothman, When a Pregnant Woman Endangers Her Fetus, 16 HASTINGS CENTER REP. 24, 25 (1986)
112. Tom L. Beauchamp, Autonomy and Consent, in THE ETHICS OF CONSENT: THEORY AND PRACTICE (Franklin G. Miller & Alan Wertheimer eds., 2010)
113. Lene Koch, IVF: An Irrational Choice?, 3 ISSUES IN REPRODUCTIVE AND GENETIC ENGINEERING 235, 236 (1990)
114. Derek Morgan, Frameworks of Analysis for Feminism's Accounts of Reproductive Technology, in FEMINIST PERSPECTIVES ON HEALTH CARE LAW 189, 193
115. Karene M. Boos & Eric J. Boos, At the Intersection of Law and Morality: A Descriptive Sociology of the Effectiveness of Informed Consent Law, 5 J.L. SOC'Y 457, 464 (2004);
116. James Staples King & Benjamin W. Moulton, Aligning Ethics with Medical Decision-Making: The Quest for Informed Patient Choice, 38 J.L. & MED. ETHICS 85, 90 (2010).
117. JAY KATZ, THE SILENT WORLD OF DOCTOR AND PATIENT (2002).
118. CARL E. SCHNEIDER, THE PRACTICE OF AUTONOMY: PATIENTS, DOCTORS & MEDICAL DECISIONS (1998).
119. John E. Wennberg & Philip G. Peters, Unwanted Variations in the Quality of Health Care: Can the Law Help Medicine Provide a Remedy/Remedies?, 37 WAKE FOREST L. REV. 925, 925-41 (2002).
120. Anne Donchin, Toward a Gender-Sensitive Assisted Reproductive Policy, 23 BIOETHICS 32 (2009).
121. David Adamson, Regulation of Assisted Reproductive Technologies in the United States, 39 FAM. L.Q. 727, 731 (2005).