Abstract
In Evans, both the U.K. High Court and Court of Appeal upheld Howard Johnston’s right to refuse Natallie Evans access to the stored embryos which represented her only hope of having a child which was genetically her own. In this note, I focus on claims of gender (in)equality in the resolution of Evans. My argument is that such claims are often made all too easily, without full consideration of the problems of advancing them in the context of procreative decision-making, where men and women are inevitably differently situated. I conclude that although equality arguments are not wholly without value in this context, they need be used with extreme care. And, with due caution, I set out an equality argument of my own which was not made in Evans.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
R. Alto Charo (1994) The Interaction between Family Planning and the Introduction of New Reproductive Technologies K. Peterson (Eds) Law and Medicine La Trobe University Press Melbourne 58
Blood, D., “‘Why They Should be Given the Right to Appeal”, The Guardian, 2 October 2003.
Dyer, C., “Women Take Fight to Save Frozen Embryos to High Court”, The Guardian, 12 September 2003.
Grayling, A.C., “Embryo Case” Evening Standard, 2 October 2003.
J. Miola (2004) ArticleTitleMix-ups, Mistake and Moral Judgement: Recent Developments in UK Law on Assisted Conception Feminist Legal Studies 12 IssueID1 67–77
Murray, J., “Cruel, Mean Spirited and Selfish” The Guardian, 3 October 2003.
S. Sheldon (2001) ArticleTitleSperm Bandits, Birth Control Fraud and the Battle of the Sexes Legal Studies 21 IssueID3 460–480
Sheldon, S., “Evans v Amicus Healthcare, Hadley v Midland Fertility Services: Revealing Cracks in the ‘Twin Pillars’?” Child & Family Law Quarterly 16(4) (forthcoming, 2004).
Vobejda, B., “Sexual Commodities” Minneapolis Star Tribune , 24 November 1998.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Sheldon, S. Gender Equality and Reproductive Decision-Making. Feminist Legal Stud 12, 303–316 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10691-004-4988-z
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10691-004-4988-z