Skip to main content
Article thumbnail
Location of Repository

The lady vanishes: what's missing from the stem cell debate

By Donna Dickenson

Abstract

Most opponents of somatic cell nuclear transfer and embryonic stem cell technologies base their arguments on the twin assertions that the embryo is either a human being or a potential human being, and that it is wrong to destroy a human being or potential human being in order to produce stem cell lines. Proponents’ justifications of stem cell research are more varied, but not enough to escape the charge of obsession with the status of the embryo. What unites the two warring sides in ‘the stem cell wars’ is that women are equally invisible to both: ‘the lady vanishes’. Yet the only legitimate property in the body is that which women possess in their reproductive tissue and the products of their reproductive labour. By drawing on the accepted characterisation in law of property as a bundle of rights, and on a Hegelian model of contract as mutual recognition, we can lessen the impact of the tendency to regard women and their eggs as merely receptacles and women’s reproductive labour as unimportant

Topics: phil
Publisher: Springer
Year: 2006
OAI identifier: oai:eprints.bbk.ac.uk.oai2:227

Suggested articles

Citations

  1. (2004). 13). Evidence of a pluripotent human embryonic stem cell line derived from a cloned blastocyst. Retrieved doi
  2. (2005). 17). Beauty salons fuel trade in aborted babies.
  3. (1999). 22). Wonder drug for men alleged to cause harm in women.
  4. (2004). 6). Women’s reproductive rights and the future of Europe. Paper delivered at the second Reproductive Rights workshop of the EC FP5 Network for European Women’s Rights,
  5. (1990). An essay on surrogacy and feminist thought. doi
  6. (2002). Breeder at law.
  7. (1994). Chix nix bundle-o-stix: a feminist critique of the disaggregation of property. doi
  8. commodification and benefit-sharing in genetic research. doi
  9. (2002). Commodification of reproductive tissue: Issues for feminist and development ethics. Developing World Bioethics, doi
  10. (2003). Consultatif National d’Ethique) and Nationaler Ethikrat. doi
  11. (2002). Consultatif National d’Ethique). doi
  12. (2001). Contested commodities at both ends of life: Buying and selling embryos, gametes and body tissue. doi
  13. (1996). Contested commodities: The trouble with trade in sex, children, body parts and other things. doi
  14. (2005). Egg donation for IVF and stem cell research: Time to weigh the risks to women’s health.
  15. (2002). Epidemiology and prevention of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS): A review. Human Reproduction Update, doi
  16. (1990). Feminism, the individual and contract theory. doi
  17. (2005). Feminists on the commodification and (in)alienability of human embryos in research,’ Hypatia, doi
  18. (1978). Fundamental legal conceptions as applied in judicial reasoning. doi
  19. (2003). Genetic research and the economic paradigm. (Einwilligung, Kommodifizierung und Vortelsausgleich in der Genforschung.) doi
  20. (2000). Genome Organisation) Ethics Council
  21. (1999). Globalization and the trade in human body parts. doi
  22. (2002). Going to the roots of the stem cell controversy. doi
  23. (2002). Health Council of the Netherlands. doi
  24. (2005). House of Commons. doi
  25. (2004). Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority of the UK doi
  26. (2005). Human tissue and global ethics. doi
  27. (1986). My body, my property. doi
  28. (1998). Ownership of the human body: Judicial and legislative responses in France. In H. ten Have and J. Welie (eds), Ownership of the human body: Philosophical considerations on the use of the human body and its parts in healthcare. doi
  29. (2005). Patient-specific embryonic stem cells derived from human SCNT blastocysts. doi
  30. (1988). Political theory and modernity. doi
  31. (1997). Procuring gametes for research and therapy: The case for unisex altruism. doi
  32. (1996). Property and justice. doi
  33. (1984). Property and political theory. doi
  34. (2001). Property and women's alienation from their own reproductive labour.Bioethics, doi
  35. (1999). Regulating the reproduction business. doi
  36. (2005). Review of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act. London: COI for the Department of Health. doi
  37. (2005). Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists Ethics Committee. doi
  38. (1997). Self-Ownership, freedom and equality. Cambridge: doi
  39. (1985). Sperm and ova as property. doi
  40. (1998). Stored tissue samples: Ethical, legal and public policy implications. Iowa City: doi
  41. (1996). Surrogate motherhood: Conception in the heart. doi
  42. (1996). The “bundle of rights” picture of property.
  43. (2000). The business of stem cells. doi
  44. (2002). The commercialization of stem cells: ethical and policy issues.
  45. (1980). The disintegration of property. doi
  46. (2003). The Ethics, law and politics of human tissue: Why we all have feminised bodies now. Cambridge:
  47. (1997). The idea of property in law. doi
  48. (1993). The man question: Visions of subjectivity in feminist theory. Berkeley and Oxford: doi
  49. (1967). The philosophy of right. doi
  50. (2001). The point of a ban, or, how to think about stem cell research. doi
  51. (2004). The Politics of property: Labour, freedom and belonging. doi
  52. (2004). The Politics of property: Labour, freedom and belonging. Edinburgh:
  53. (1988). The right to private property. doi
  54. (2003). The second enclosure movement and the construction of the public domain. doi
  55. (1689). The second treatise on civil government. doi
  56. (1988). The sexual contract. Cambridge: Polity Press. -----(in press). On critics and contract. doi
  57. The threatened trade in human ova’.
  58. (2005). Tissue economies: Gifts, commodities and biovalue in late capitalism. doi
  59. (1989). Toward a feminist theory of the state. doi
  60. (2001). Use of human gametes obtained from anonymous donors for the production of human embryonic stem cell lines. doi
  61. (2000). Waste, ownership and bodily products.
  62. (1996). What is wrong with commodification?
  63. (1996). What is wrong with commodification? In
  64. (2005). Will new ways of creating stem cells dodge the objections? Hastings Center Report, doi
  65. (1919). with foreword by
  66. (1990). Women and contracts: no new deal. doi
  67. Women and Politics. doi
  68. (2003). Women, commodification and embryonic stem-cell research. In doi

To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.