Health Care Analysis

, Volume 8, Issue 2, pp 155–169

Gametes, Law and Modern Preoccupations

  • Thérèse Murphy
Article

Abstract

This article surveys a range of recent media storiesabout human gametes, pinning them to a series of widerpreoccupations within late modern life. Threepreoccupations are singled out: first, kinship andrelational identity; secondly, Nature andglobalisation; and finally, sexual difference andequality. Each one of these preoccupations has beencharacterised as iconic; debates about them are saidto crystallise who we are, especially ouruncertainties, and what we will be in the future. Byindexing these preoccupations to the stories abouthuman gametes, the article aims to upset both theincreasing attempts to present assisted reproductiontechnologies as `familiar' (as Nature's `helpinghand', for example) and the recurringassumptions about this technology's alleged`novelty' and `anomaly'. The article concludesthat treating reproduction technologies, and theirregulation, as `familiar' risks complacency:equally, assumptions about their `novelty' narrowsthe search for effective explanatory tools andregulatory mechanisms. The upshot is that it might bebest for us to view reproductive technologies as bothless `familiar' and less `novel'.

gametes globalisation identity kinship law nature sexual difference 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Atherton, R. (1999) En ventre sa frigidaire: Posthumous Children in the Succession Context. Legal Studies 19, 139–164.Google Scholar
  2. Brazier, M. (1998) Reproductive Rights: Feminism or Patriarchy? In J. Harris and S. Holm (Eds), The Future of Human Reproduction: Ethics, Choice, and Regulation (pp. 66–76). Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  3. Brazier, M. et al. (1998) Surrogacy: Review for Health Ministers of Current Arrangements For Payments and Regulation. Cm. 4068. Department of Health.Google Scholar
  4. Beck, U. and Beck-Gernsheim, E. (1995) The Normal Chaos of Love. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  5. Daniels, C. (1997) Between Fathers and Fetuses: The Social Construction of Male Reproduction and the Politics of Fetal Harm. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 22(3), 579–613.Google Scholar
  6. Franklin, S. (1995) Postmodern Procreation: A Cultural Account of Assisted Reproduction. In F.D. Ginsburg and R. Rapp (Eds), Conceiving the New World Order: The Global Politics of Reproduction (pp. 256–269). Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  7. Franklin, S. (1997) Embodied Progress: A Cultural Account of Assisted Conception. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  8. Franklin, S. (1998) Making Miracles: Scientific Progress and the Facts of Life. In S. Franklin and H. Ragoné (Eds), Reproducing Reproduction: Kinship, Power and Technological Innovation (pp. 102–117). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
  9. Gatens, M. (1996) Imaginary Bodies: Ethics, Power and Corporeality. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. Giddens, A. (1992) The Transformation of Intimacy: Sexuality, Love and Eroticism in Modern Society. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  11. Grosz, E. (1994) Volatile Bodies: Towards a Corporeal Feminism. Bloomington: Indiana UP.Google Scholar
  12. Grubb, A. (1999) Commentary on A.B. v. Attorney General of Victoria. Medical Law Review 7, 84–85.Google Scholar
  13. Hall, S. (1998) The Great Moving-Nowhere Show. Marxism Today, Nov/Dec, 11-18.Google Scholar
  14. Hartouni, V. (1997) Cultural Conceptions: On Reproductive Technologies and the Remaking of Life. Princeton: Princeton UP.Google Scholar
  15. Held, D. (1999) Globalization. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  16. Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (1994) Donated Ovarian Tissue in Embryo Research and Assisted Conception.Google Scholar
  17. Irigaray, L. (1985) This Sex Which Is Not One. Ithaca, NY: Cornell UP.Google Scholar
  18. Lacquer, T. (1990) The Facts of Fatherhood. In M. Hirsch and E. Fox Keller (Eds), Conflicts in Feminism (pp. 205–221). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  19. McLean, S. (1997) Consent and the Law: Review of the current provisions in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 for the UK Health Ministers - Consultation Document and Questionnaire.Google Scholar
  20. Martin, E. (1991) The Egg and the Sperm. Signs 16(3), 485–501.Google Scholar
  21. Martin, E. (1994) Flexible Bodies: The Role of Immunity in American Culture from the Days of Polio to the Age of AIDS. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
  22. Martin, E. (1995) From Reproduction to HIV: Blurring Categories, Shifting Positions. In F.D. Ginsburg and R. Rapp (Eds), Conceiving the New World Order: The Global Politics of Reproduction (pp. 256–269). Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  23. Morgan, D. and Lee, R.G. (1997) In the Name of the Father? Ex parte Blood: Dealing with Novelty and Anomaly. Modern Law Review 60, 840–856.Google Scholar
  24. Morgan, D. (1998) Frameworks of Analysis for Feminisms' Accounts of Reproductive Technology. In S. Sheldon and M. Thomson (Eds), Feminist Perspectives on Health Care Law (pp. 189–209). London: Cavendish.Google Scholar
  25. Radin, M. (1987) Market-Inalienability. Harvard Law Review 100, 1849–1979.Google Scholar
  26. Ragoné H (1998) Incontestable Motivations. In S. Franklin and H. Ragoné (Eds), Reproducing Reproduction: Kinship, Power, and Technological Innovation (pp. 118–131). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
  27. Sasken, S. (1998) Globalization and Its Discontents: Essays on the New Mobility of People and Money. New York: The New Press.Google Scholar
  28. Sheldon, S. (1999) ReConceiving Masculinity: Imagining Men's Reproductive Bodies in Law. Journal of Law and Society 26(2), 129–149.Google Scholar
  29. Shilling, C. (1993) The Body and Social Theory. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  30. Smart, C. (1987) There is of Course the Distinction Dictated by Nature: Law and the Problem of Paternity. In M. Stanworth (Ed.), Reproductive Technologies: Gender, Motherhood and Medicine (pp. 98–117). Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  31. Smart, C. and Neale, B. (1999) Family Fragments? Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  32. Steinbock, B. (1998) Sperm as Property. In J. Harris and S. Holm (Eds), The Future of Human Reproduction: Ethics, Choice, and Regulation (pp. 150–161). Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  33. Strathern, M. (1993) Reproducing the Future: Anthropology, Kinship and the New Reproductive Technologies. Manchester: Manchester UP.Google Scholar
  34. Stychin, C.F. (1998) Body Talk: Rethinking Autonomy, Commodification and the Embodied Legal Self. In S. Sheldon and M. Thomson (Eds), Feminist Perspectives on Health Care Law (pp. 211–236). London: Cavendish.Google Scholar
  35. Turner, B.S. (1996) The Body and Society. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  36. Waldby, C. (1996) AIDS and the Body Politic: Biomedicine and Sexual Difference. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thérèse Murphy
    • 1
  1. 1.School of LawUniversity of NottinghamNottinghamUK

Personalised recommendations