Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Gender Equality and Reproductive Decision-Making

  • Case note
  • Published:
Feminist Legal Studies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sally Sheldon.

Rights and permissions

Reprints 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

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10691-004-4988-z

Keywords

Navigation