Assisted Reproduction: Managing an Unruly Technology
Health Care Analysis 12 (1):41-49 (2004)
| Abstract | Technology is unruly because it operates in a social context where it is shaped by institutions, organisations and individuals in ways not envisaged when it was first developed. In the UK assisted reproductive technology has developed from strictly circumscribed beginnings as a treatment for infertility within the NHS, to a service which is more often offered by commercial clinics and purchased by clients who are not necessarily infertile. The article considers the process by which assisted reproductive technology has been created and developed, a process which is ideological rather than technical, and the social implications of its ever expanding use. In a society where the discourse around reproduction and family life is one of choice and acceptance of diversity of life styles, the conditions are set for further unruliness supported by clinicians and commercial interests. The HFEA, public consultations and media coverage tend to subscribe to the way ethical issues are framed by those interested parties, an approach that favours increased liberalisation | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,679 |
| External links |
  Try with proxy. |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesGodfrey B. Tangwa (2008). Third Party Assisted Conception: An African Perspective. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 29 (5):297-306.
Thomas Søbirk Petersen (2004). A Woman's Choice? On Women, Assisted Reproduction and Social Coercion. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 7 (1):81 - 90.
Thomas Søbirk Petersen (2004). A Woman's Choice? – On Women, Assisted Reproduction and Social Coercion. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 7 (1):81-90.
Carmel Shalev (2012). An Ethic of Care and Responsibility: Reflections on Third-Party Reproduction. Medicine Studies 3 (3):147-156.
Nuket Ornek Buken & Serap Sahinoglu (2012). Gender, Infertitlity, Motherhood, and Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) in Turkey. Human Reproduction and Genetic Ethics 16 (2):218-232.
Anne Donchin (2011). In Whose Interest? Policy and Politics in Assisted Reproduction. Bioethics 25 (2):92-101.
Susan L. Crockin (2010). Legal Conceptions: The Evolving Law and Policy of Assisted Reproductive Technologies. Johns Hopkins University Press.
Drew Carter & Annette Braunack-Mayer (2011). The Appeal to Nature Implicit in Certain Restrictions on Public Funding for Assisted Reproductive Technology. Bioethics 25 (8):463-471.
Enrico Maestri (2011). Fabbriche Della Vita. La Critica Ecofemminista Alle Tecniche Riproduttive Artificiali. Ragion Pratica 37 (2):417-442.
Maura Anne Ryan (1995). The New Reproductive Technologies: Defying God's Dominion? Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 20 (4):419-438.
Daniela Cutas & Lisa Bortolotti (2010). Natural Versus Assisted Reproduction. In Search of Fairness. Studies in Ethics, Law and Technology 4 (1).
Jyotsna Agnihotri Gupta & Annemiek Richters (2008). Embodied Subjects and Fragmented Objects: Women's Bodies, Assisted Reproduction Technologies and the Right to Self-Determination. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 5 (4).
Anne Donchin (2009). Toward a Gender-Sensitive Assisted Reproduction Policy. Bioethics 23 (1):28-38.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2010-08-24Total downloads6 ( #145,615 of 549,087 )Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #37,333 of 549,087 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
