Hidden in full sight: kinship, science and the law in the aftermath of the Srebrenica genocide

Terms such as “relationship testing,” “familial searching” and “kinship analysis” figure prominently in professional practices of disaster victim identification (DVI). However, despite the dependence of those identification technologies on DNA samples from people who might be related to the dead and despite also the prominence of the notion of “relatedness” as a device for identifying the dead, the concepts of “relatedness” and “kinship” remain elusive both in practice and in analyses of the social and ethical aspects of DVI by DNA; they are hidden in full sight. In this article, we wish to bring kinship more to the fore. We achieve this through a case study of a setting where bio-legal framings dominate, that is, in the trial at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) of Radovan Karadžić for the Srebrenica genocide in 1995. DNA samples from the families of those massacred in Srebrenica were vital for the identification of individual victims but are now also utilized as “evidence” by both the prosecution and the defense. By viewing practices of science (“evidence” and “identification”) and legal practices (“justice,” “prosecution” and “defence”) through the lens of kinship studies, we will present some alternative and complementary framings for the social accomplishment of ‘relatedness’

“Being Guided”: What Oncofertility Patients’ Decisions Can Teach Us About the Efficacy of Autonomy, Agency, and Decision-Making Theory in the Contemporary Critical Encounter

Recent research on patient decision-making reveals a disconnect between theories of autonomy, agency, and decision-making and their practice in contemporary clinical encounters. This study examines these concepts in the context of female patients making oncofertility decisions in the United Kingdom in light of the phenomenon of “being guided.” Patients experience being guided as a way to cope with, understand, and defer difficult treatment decisions. Previous discussions condemn guided decision-making, but this research suggests that patients make an informed, autonomous decision to be guided by doctors. Thus, bioethicists must consider the multifaceted ways that patients enact their autonomy in medical encounters

Issues of gender in gamete donation

Gamete donation refers to the practice whereby either semen or eggs are donated by a third party to enable infertile individuals or couples to become parents. This paper examines the way in which gender is deployed as a resource for organizing the meanings attached to that practice. The gender aspects of gamete donation are not always immediately apparent since semen and egg donation are often described as being essentially the same. However, a closer examination indicates that behind the claim of equivalence lies a set of unstated assumptions about their difference. These assumptions are tied to ideas about the ways in which men and women are thought to behave more generally in relation to reproduction and the family. This paper draws on two sources of empirical data to reveal how these assumptions are used: first, data from a detailed analysis of the Warnock Report (established by the British Government in 1982 to inquire into and make recommendations on techniques of human fertilization and embryology), which includes a cross-national and historical comparison with other government reports; second, data from a series of in-depth interviews with members of the Warnock Committee. The analysis of the reports suggests that historically semen donation was associated with 'deviant' sexuality (masturbation, adultery, illegitimacy) though paradoxically the extant nature of semen donation was then used to justify the acceptance of egg donation in later reports. This is despite the fact that in these later reports there are clear, albeit implicit, distinctions drawn between the two procedures in terms of donor motivation, the risks of being a donor, and the consequences of donation. These differences were more marked in the interview data. Committee members regarded egg donors as being very altruistic, whereas they frequently raised doubts about the motivations of semen donors. It is suggested in the discussion section of the paper that assumptions about gender and reproduction lead to egg donation being seen in a familial, clinical and asexual context whereas semen donation is seen in an individualistic, unregulated context of dubious sexual connotations. Therefore whilst assisted reproduction provides the chance to challenge gender assumptions, what we find instead is that the everyday reasoning practices of those involved in these policy discussions leads to a reinforcing of such views.semen donation egg donation gender