Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Law and the Symbolic Value of the Body

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Symbolic Legislation Theory and Developments in Biolaw

Part of the book series: Legisprudence Library ((LEGIS,volume 4))

Abstract

This chapter explores the debates over the legal classification of the body and of bodily material. It argues that the choice of legal classification symbolises a particular vision of the biological nature of the body and the legitimacy of interests in the body. It argues that treating the body as property would symbolise an image of the body as a static, self-contained and independent entity. This image would itself be a symbol that would give significance to the individualised values of autonomy, privacy and bodily integrity. This chapter claims that in fact bodies are mutable, interdependent and leaky. We need to recognise the communal and relational values in bodies, as well as the interests that the individual has in the body. This would support rejecting the property model in favour of a more flexible approach that recognises the range of different interests that can be claimed in relation to different body parts in different situations.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    In this chapter I have drawn on ideas I have developed in Herring and Chau (2007, 2013); Chau and Herring, ‘Interconnected, inhabited and insecure: why bodies should not be property’ (2014) and Herring (2014).

  2. 2.

    See, for example, the support of a majority for a property approach among of contributors to Goold et al. (2014).

  3. 3.

    I first heard this phrase in a lecture given by Jesse Wall and am grateful for his permission to use it.

References

  • Alghrani, Amel, and John Harris. 2006. Reproductive liberty. Should the foundation of families be regulated? Child and Family Law Quarterly 18: 191–212.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boddington, Paula, and Ulla Raisanen. 2009. Theoretical and practical issues in the definition of health. Insights from Aboriginal Australia. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 34: 49–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chau, P.-L., and Jonathan Herring. 2014. Interconnected, inhabited and insecure. Why bodies should not be property. Journal of Medical Ethics 44: 39–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dickinson, Donna. 2013. Me medicine vs. we medicine. Reclaiming biotechnology for the common good. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feder Kittay, Eva. 1999. Love’s labour. Essays on women, equality and dependency. Abingdon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fineman, Martha. 2004. The autonomy myth. New York: New Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fineman, Martha. 2011. The vulnerable subject. Anchoring equality in the human condition. In Transcending the boundaries of law. Generations of feminism and legal theory, ed. M. Fineman, 167–183. Abingdon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fletcher, Joseph. 1979. Humanhood. Essays in biomedical ethics. Buffalo: Prometheus Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foster, Charles. 2009. Choosing life, choosing death. Oxford: Hart.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foster, Charles. 2014. Dignity and the use of body parts. Journal of Medical Ethics 40: 44–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foster, Charles, and Jonathan Herring. 2014. What is health? In Law and global health, ed. Freeman Michael, Hawkes Sarah, and Bennett Belinda. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frazer, Elizabeth, and Nicola Lacey. 1993. The politics of community. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gergen, Kenneth. 2011. Relational being. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Goold, Imogen. 2013. Property or not property? The spectrum of approaches to regulating the use of human bodily material. Journal of Law and Medicine 21: 299–313.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goold, Imogen, Kate Greasley, Jonathan Herring, and Loane Skene (eds.). 2014. Persons, parts and property. Oxford: Hart.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hardcastle, Rohan. 2007. Law and the human body. Oxford: Hart.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herring, Jonathan. 2013. Caring and the law. Oxford: Hart.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herring, Jonathan. 2014. Why we need a statute for bodily material. In Persons, parts and property, ed. Goold Imogen, Greasley Kate, Herring Jonathan, and Skene Loane. Hart: Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herring, Jonathan, and P.-L. Chau. 2007. My body, your body, our bodies. Medical Law Review 15: 34–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herring, Jonathan, and P.-L. Chau. 2013. Relational bodies. Journal of Law and Medicine 29: 214–225.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huxtable, Richard, and Julie Woodley. 2005. Gaining face or losing face? Framing the debate on face transplants. Bioethics 19: 505–531.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Irigaray, Luce. 1993. An ethics of sexual difference. New York: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karpin, Isabel. 2005. Genetics and the legal conception of self. In Ethics of the body, ed. Margrit Shildrick and Roxanne Mykitiuk, 2005. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Katz, Larissa. 2008. Exclusion and exclusivity in property law. University of Toronto Law Journal 58: 275–332.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levy, Traci. 2006. The relational self and the right to give care. New Political Science 28: 547–563.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lind, Craig. 2006. Evans v United Kingdom – judgments of Solomon. Power, gender and procreation. Child and Family Law Quarterly 18: 576–593.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindemann, Kate. 2003. The ethics of receiving. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 24: 501–523.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macallan, D., C. Fullerton, R. Neese, K. Haddock, S. Park, and M. Hellerstein. 1998. Measurement of cell proliferation by labelling of DNA with stable isotope-labelled glucose. Studies in vitro, in animals and in humans. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 95:708–718.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maclean, Mavis. 2001. Letting go. Retention of human material after post mortem. In Body lore and laws, ed. Bainham Andrew, Sclater Shelley Day, and Richards Martin. Oxford: Hart.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quigley, Muireann. 2009. Property. The future of human tissue? Medical Law Review 17: 457–476.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quigley, Muireann. 2012. Property in human biomaterials—Separating persons and things? Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 32: 65–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sheach-Leith, Valerie. 2007. Consent and nothing but consent? The organ retention scandal. Sociology of Health and Illness 29: 1023–1039.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shildrick, Margrit. 1997. Leaky bodies and boundaries. Feminism, postmodernism and (Bio)ethics. Abingdon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shildrick, Margrit, and Roxanne Mykitiuk (eds.). 2005. Ethics of the body. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skene, Loane. 2002. Proprietary rights in human bodies, body parts and tissue. Regulatory contexts and proposals for new laws. Legal Studies 22: 102–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Beers, Britta. 2014. Is Europe ‘giving in to baby markets?’ Reproductive tourism in europe and the gradual erosion of existing legal limits to reproductive markets. Medical Law Review. doi:10.1093/medlaw/fwu016.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wall, Jesse. 2011. The legal status of body parts. A framework. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 31: 783–802.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wall, Jesse. 2014. The trespasses of property law. Journal of Medical Ethics 40: 19–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • West, Robin. 1997. Caring for justice. New York: New York University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whitney, Shiloh. 2011. Dependency relations. Corporeal vulnerability and norms of personhood in Hobbes and Kittay. Hypatia 26: 544–567.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Young, Alan, and John Hay. 1995. Rapid turnover of the recirculating lymphocyte pool in vivo. International Immunology 7: 1607–1612.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Cases

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, Exeter College, University of Oxford, Oxford, Oxon, OX1 3DP, UK

    Jonathan Herring

Authors
  1. Jonathan Herring
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jonathan Herring .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Legal Theory and Legal History, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Bart van Klink

  2. Department of Legal Theory and Legal History, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Britta van Beers

  3. Department of Sociology, Theory and Methodology, Erasmus University Rotterdam Erasmus School of Law, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

    Lonneke Poort

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Herring, J. (2016). The Law and the Symbolic Value of the Body. In: van Klink, B., van Beers, B., Poort, L. (eds) Symbolic Legislation Theory and Developments in Biolaw. Legisprudence Library, vol 4. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-33365-6_8

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-33365-6_8

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-33363-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-33365-6

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation