Journal of Bioethical Inquiry

, Volume 5, Issue 2–3, pp 101–106 | Cite as

The Biopolitics of Bioethics and Disability

  • Shelley TremainEmail author

Though bioethics emerged as a sphere of inquiry and application of moral and juridical principles less than a century ago, its rise and expansion have nevertheless been considerable. Not only has bioethics evolved into a popular subdiscipline of philosophy; many of its arguments and claims have also influenced work in the disciplines of medicine, the life sciences, and law. Furthermore, the arguments and claims of bioethicists have increasing currency in the political domain, affecting the design of public policy and law, the acceptance (or refusal) of forms of medical and scientific research, the identification of public funding priorities, and the inculcation of social values, expectations, and ideals. At one time limited to the relatively private and sacrosanct relations between physicians and the people they serve, bioethics has increasingly come to occupy a central position in the political discourse of technologically-developed societies. Neither the controversy surrounding some...


  1. 1.
    Jasanoff, S. (2005). Designs on nature: Science and democracy in Europe and the United States. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Foucault, M. (1978). In Hurley R., translator. The history of sexuality, volume 1: An introduction. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Foucault, M. (2003). Lecture of 17 March 1976. In M. Bertani, & A. Fontana (Eds.), “Society must be defended”: Lectures at Collège de France, 1975–1976. New York: Picador Translated by D. Macey.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Tremain, S. (2005). Foucault, governmentality, and critical disability theory: An introduction. In S. Tremain (Ed.), Foucault and the government of disability. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Tremain, S. (2006). Reproductive freedom, self-regulation, and the government of impairment in utero. Hypatia: A Journal of Feminist Philosophy, 21(1), 35–43.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Foucault, M. (1979). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. New York: Vintage. Translated by A. Sheridan.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gordon, C. (1991). Governmental rationality: An introduction. In G. Burchell, C. Gordon, & P. Miller (Eds.), The Foucault effect: studies in governmentality. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tremain, S. (2001). On the government of disability. Social Theory and Practice, 27(4), 617–636.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Terzi, L. (2004). The social model of disability: A philosophical critique. Journal of Applied Philosophy, 21(2), 141–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Oliver, M. (1990). The politics of disablement. London: Macmillan Education.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Union for the Physically Impaired Against Segregation (UPIAS) (1976). The fundamental principles of disability. London: Union for the Physically Impaired Against Segregation.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Oliver, M. (1996). Understanding disability: From theory to practice. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tremain, S. (1998). Feminist approaches to naturalizing disabled bodies; or, does the social model of disability rest upon a mistake? Paper presented at the Society for Disability Studies Conference, Oakland, CA.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Buchanan, A., Brock, D. W., Daniels, N., & Wikler, D. I. (2000). From chance to choice: Genetics and justice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.HamiltonCanada

Personalised recommendations