Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Stemming the Tide of Normalisation: An Expanded Feminist Analysis of the Ethics and Social Impact of Embryonic Stem Cell Research

  • Published:
Journal of Bioethical Inquiry Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Feminists have indicated the inadequacies of bioethical debates about human embryonic stem cell research, which have for the most part revolved around concerns about the moral status of the human embryo. Feminists have argued, for instance, that inquiry concerning the ethics and politics of human embryonic stem cell research should consider the relations of social power in which the research is embedded. My argument is that this feminist work on stem cells is itself inadequate, however, insofar as it has not incorporated an analysis of disability into its considerations of the ethical and political issues that surround the phenomena. Thus, I consider claims that disability theorists and anti-disability activists have made about the research. I conclude by indicating that stem cell research must be situated within a cultural matrix that operates in the service of normalisation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. A research survey of IVF clinics in Canada conducted by Françoise Baylis, Brenda Beagan, Josephine Johnston, and Natalie Ram [4] suggests that these ‘unsuitable’ embryos are those that preimplantation diagnosis has predicted to be ‘impaired human beings’. This implication of stem cell research has not been interrogated by disability theorists and researchers who have concentrated their critiques of the research on the aspects of it that I discuss below.

  2. See, for instance, Dan Brock’s remarks in a presentation entitled, “Genetic Testing and Selection: A Response to the Disability Movement’s Critique,” that he gave to the 10th “Genetic Technology & Public Policy in the New Millenium” symposium in November 2002. Addressing criticisms from the disabled people’s movement, according to which he has ignored what disabled people say about their own lives, Brock asserted that “Our notion of how good a person’s life is [isn’t] fully determined by their own subjective assessment.” Even with modifications to the environment, Brock claimed, disabled people live with ‘real disadvantages.’ Thus, so-called ‘severe disabilities’ [among which Brock counts blindness and ‘mental retardation’] should be prevented with the use of amniocentesis and abortion. The prevention of ‘severe disabilities,’ Brock pointed out, is not for the sake of a given child, but rather for the sake of less suffering and loss of opportunity in the world. In addition, he claimed that “it’s a mistake to think that the social and economic costs are not a legitimate concern in this context.” ([21]; emphases added).

References

  1. Amundson, R. (2000). Against normal function. Studies in the History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 31C, 33–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Amundson, R. (2005). Disability, ideology, and quality of life: a bias in biomedical ethics. In D. Wasserman, R. Wachbroit, & J. Bickenbach (Eds.), Quality of life and human difference (pp. 101–124). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Annas, G. J., Caplan, A., & Elias, S. (1996). The politics of human-embryo research – Avoiding ethical gridlock. New England Journal of Medicine, 334, 1329–1332.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Baylis, F., Beagan B., Johnston J., & Ram, N. (2003). Cryopreserved human embryos in Canada and their availability for research. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada, 25(12), 1026–1031.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Boorse, C. (1977). Health as a theoretical concept. Philosophy of Science, 44, 542–573.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Buchanan, A., Brock, D. W., Daniels, N., & Wikler, D. I. (2000). From chance to choice: Genetics and justice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Cahill, L. S. (2000). Social ethics of embryo and stem cell research. Women’s Health Issues, 10(3), 131–135.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Cohen, C. B. (2000). Use of “excess” embryos for research: Protecting women’s rights and health. Women’s Health Issues, 10(3), 121–126.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Dickenson, D. (2002). Commentary: Commodification of human tissue: Implications for feminist and development ethics. Developing World Bioethics, 2(1), 55–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Fausto-Sterling, A. (2000). Sexing the body: Gender politics and the construction of sexuality. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Foucault, M. (1978). In Hurley R, translator. The history of sexuality, volume 1: An introduction. New York: Random House.

  12. Foucault, M. (2003). Lecture of March 17, 1976. In M. Bertani, A. Fontana (Eds.), Macey D, translator. “Society must be defended”: Lectures at Collège de France, 1975–1976. New York: Picador.

  13. Goggin, G., & Newell, C. (2004). Uniting the nation? Disability, stem cells, and the Australian media. Disability & Society, 19(1), 47–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Harris, L. H. (2000). Ethics and politics of embryo and stem cell research: Reinscribing the abortion debate. Women’s Health Issues, 10(3), 146–151.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Holland, S. (2001). Beyond the embryo: A feminist appraisal of the embryonic stem cell debate. In S. Holland, K. Lebavqz, & L. Zoloth (Eds.), The Human embryonic stem cell debate: Science, ethics, and public policy (pp. 73–86). Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT; 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Lakshmipathy, U., & Verfaillie, C. (2004). Stem cell plasticity. Blood Reviews, 19, 29–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Oudshoorn, N. (1994). Beyond the natural body: An archaeology of sex hormones. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Parens, E. (2000). Embryonic stem cells and the bigger reprogenetic picture. Women’s Health Issues, 10(3), 116–135.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Pickering, S. (2003). Preimplantation genetic diagnosis as a novel source of embryos for stem cell research. Reproductive BioMedicine Online, 7(3), 353–364.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Regalado, A. (1998). The troubled hunt for the ultimate cell. Technological Review, 101, 4–41.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Rivera, y Carlo R. Targeting the disabled. Boundless Webzine [serial on the Internet]. 2002 [cited 2003 May]. Available from: http://www.boundless.org/2002_2003/features/a0000685.html.

  22. Roche, P., & Grodin, M. (2000). The ethical challenge of stem cell research. Women’s Health Issues, 10(3), 136–139.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Sherwin, S. (1992). No longer patient: Feminist ethics & health care. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Thomson, J., Itskvitz-Eldor, J., Shapiro, S., Waknitz, M., Marshall, V., & Jones, J. (1998). Embryonic stem cell lines derived from human blastocysts. Science, 283, 1145–1147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Tremain, S. (2001). On the government of disability. Social Theory and Practice, 27(4), 617–636.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Tremain, S. (2002). On the subject of impairment. In: M. Corker & T. Shakespeare (Eds.), Disability/postmodernity: Embodying political theory (pp. 26–50). London: Continuum.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Tremain, S. (2006). Reproductive freedom, self-regulation, and the government of impairment in utero. In R. Kukla (Ed.), Maternal Bodies. Special issue of Hypatia: A Journal of Feminist Philosophy, 21(1), 35–53.

  28. Tucker, B. (1998). Deaf culture, cochlear implants, and elective disability. Hastings Center Report, 28(4), 6–14.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. van der Kooy D., & Weiss, S. (2000). Why stem cells? Science, 287, 1439–1441.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was funded by a grant to Françoise Baylis and Jason Scott Robert from the Stem Cell Network (a member of the Network of Centres of Excellence Program, Canada). My sincere thanks to Françoise Baylis and Jason Scott Robert for their generous support of my work and their invaluable advice, to Mary Sunderland for her assistance with the science of stem cells, to Ron Amundson who helped me formulate my claims around species-typical functioning, and to Leslie Green who pushed me to clarify a number of these points.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Humanities, University of Toronto at Scarborough, 1265 Military Trail, Toronto, Ontario, M1C 1A4, Canada

    Shelley Tremain

Authors
  1. Shelley Tremain
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shelley Tremain.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Tremain, S. Stemming the Tide of Normalisation: An Expanded Feminist Analysis of the Ethics and Social Impact of Embryonic Stem Cell Research. Bioethical Inquiry 3, 33–42 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-006-9002-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-006-9002-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation