The Texture of Reproductive Choice

New Technologies and Human Rights

Volumn , Issue , 2009, Pages

  Murphy, Thérèse ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NOTTINGHAM   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Arguments; Assisted reproductive technologies; Ethnography; Human rights lawyers; Issues; Speakability

Indexed keywords

EID: 84900690361     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199562572.003.0006     Document Type: Chapter

References (24)

1. Respectively, S. Franklin and C. Roberts, Born and Made: An Ethnography of Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis (2006);
2. C. Thompson, Making Parents:The Ontological Choreography of Reproductive Technologies (2005).
3. See eg R. Dworkin, Life's Dominion: An Argument about Abortion and Euthanasia (1983) and also his Freedom's Law (1996);
4. J. Harris, 'Rights and Reproductive Choice', in J. Harris and S. Holm (eds), The Future of Human Reproduction: Ethics, Choice and Regulation (1998) 5;
5. E. Jackson, Regulating Reproduction (2001);
6. J. Robertson, Children of Choice: Freedom and the New Reproductive Technologies (1994).
7. Jackson, 'Abortion, Autonomy and Prenatal Diagnosis' (2000) 9 SLS 467, at 468.
8. Brownsword, 'Red Lights and Rogues: Regulating Human Genetics', in H. Somsen (ed), The Regulatory Challenge of Biotechnology: Human Genetics, Food, and Patents (2007) 39.
9. O. O'Neill, Autonomy and Trust in Bioethics (2003), at 38.
10. Vakulenko, 'Liberalism, Civilisation and the (Non-)Oxymoronic Limits of Tolerance' (2008) 3 Intl J of Law in Context 323, at 337.
11. F. Ginsburg and R. Rapp (eds), Conceiving the New World Order: The Global Politics of Reproduction (1995) 1.
12. See further Callahan, 'Bioethics and Fatherhood' (1992) Utah L Rev 735;
13. Sheldon, 'Reproductive Choice: Men's Freedom and Women's Responsibility?', in J.R. Spencer and A. Du Bois-Pedain (eds), Freedom and Responsibility in Reproductive Choice (2006) 175.
14. Kerr and Franklin, 'Genetic Ambivalence: Expertise, Uncertainty and Communication in the Context of New Genetic Technologies', in A. Webster (ed), New Technologies in Health Care: Challenge, Change and Innovation (2006) 40, at 50.
15. R. Rapp, Testing Women, Testing the Fetus: The Social Impact of Amniocentesis in America (2000).
16. N. Rose, The Politics of Life Itself (2007) 146.
17. See, further, Turkmendag, Dingwall, and Murphy, 'The Removal of Donor Anonymity in the UK' (2008) 22 Intl J of Law, Policy & the Family 283.
18. See, further, Franklin, 'Embryonic Economies: The Double Reproductive Value of Stem Cells' (2006) 1 BioSocieties 71.
19. On the latter, see, in particular, D. Beyleveld and R. Brownsword, Consent in the Law (2007);
20. N.C. Manson and O. O'Neill, Rethinking Informed Consent in Bioethics (2007).
21. I. Karpin, 'Genetics and the Legal Conception of Self', in M. Shildrick and R. Mykitiuk (eds), Ethics of the Body: Postconventional Challenges (2005) 195, at 196-7.
22. Murphy, 'Health Confidentiality in the Age of Talk', in S. Sheldon and M. Thomson (eds), Feminist Perspectives on Health Care Law (1999) 155, at 164.
23. Magnusson, 'The Devil's Choice: Re-thinking Law, Ethics, and Symptom Relief in Palliative Care' (2006) 34 J of Law, medicine & Ethics 559, at 559.
24. See also Nelson, 'Reconceiving Pregnancy: Expressive Choice and Legal Reasoning' (2003/4) 49 McGill LJ 593.