|
|
|
      |
Claire Townley-Jones A Pregnant Pause: A Discussion Of Issues Surrounding Reproductive Autonomy Cultural Studies from Birmingham, Volume 2, Issue 1 (1998) ISSN 1463-9734 To cite articles published in Cultural Studies from Birmingham, please reference the above information. Introduction Death and birth in Western societies have acquired a significance above and beyond their traditional roles as the absolute limits of our physicality; this is precisely because these notions, the very foundations upon which we attempt to keep our balance through life, are beginning to shift and re-form beneath our feet. With the advent of the new obstetrical and reproductive technologies have come a whole new set of rules, rules which refuse to stay as anything but transitory, regarding some of the most fundamental concepts known to humankind. The conceptus, the origins of life and the ability to manipulate those origins have pervaded much of Western philosophical, scientific and public debate over the last half of the century without any particular signs of abatement. Infertility treatment is no longer considered to be specialist subject area, relevant to only a few unfortunates in society. Infertility rates are rising and so is the demand for treatment. It is estimated that around 16,000 couples undergo the processes of in vitro fertilisation (IVF - the process of fertilising an egg with sperm outside of the female body, then replacing the ensuing embryo back into the woman’s womb to develop to term) every year, with approximately 3,000 IVF babies being born every year with numbers rising annually. That is not to include the various other fertility treatments in clinics and hospitals or the regularly prescribed drugs designed to increase ovulation and fertility. However, this is not a development that has gone unnoticed by the public or the state, nor is it one without its own anomalies and disturbances. Indeed, the new technologies and developments in obstetrical care have, over the past couple of years, been the subject of a great deal of attention varying in its intensity and attitude. Over the past year in particular, fears and anxieties about the implications and possibilities for ‘mis-management’ and abuse have manifested themselves in what one writer has described as a ‘New Moral Army’. (1) This term denotes a new barrage of writers concerned with the intense complexities of the moral and ethical implications of the new technologies. The context for this new moralism appears to have sprung from the past few year’s tragedies such as the murders of Jamie Bulger and headmaster Philip Lawrence and the Dunblane massacre. All of this has combined with other high-profile topics and events such as the selective termination of one unborn twin, the ‘binning’ of some 3,000 ‘unclaimed’ frozen embryos having reached the statutory ‘age limit’ of five years, post-menopausal women having children as a result of IVF treatment, and the mass-publicised cases of Mandy Allwood and Diane Blood. (2) All of these issues, and others, occurred within a very short length of time and elicited a huge number of reactions and debates which some have claimed bear all the sign of a moral panic. Why is there so much anxiety? Is it reflective of a new era with new anxieties or simply a reconfiguration of old fears given added emphasis by a technological twist? How is it that women seem to have been pushed to the centre-stage of attention within such male -dominated institutions as the medical profession, legal practices and media expressions of a social and moral decline? Throughout the course of this dissertation my intention was to construct a broader framework of thinking about issues concerning women’s reproductive autonomy and the new reproductive technologies. I intended to discuss an overall pattern of attitudes and motivations which have historically, and are presently, affecting one of the most potentially socially affective areas of modern science. I wished to map out debates surrounding issues of women’s reproductive autonomy and the emergence of the new reproductive techniques. I feel there is a need to consider them from within a working historical, political, ideological and economic framework; as a result of existing and relatively unchallenged attitudes and perceptions. For the purposes of publication I have been obliged to reduce the size of this dissertation and so I will simply summarise the main objectives and points of my literature review, and my first and second chapters, before moving on to a fuller version of my third and final chapter. The purpose of my literature review is to attempt to provide a general overview of the issues and debates surrounding both fertility and the new reproductive technologies, beginning with the 1960’s and the feminist contribution to ‘re-imagining’ the body as invested with cultural meaning and moving on to discuss the impact of the introduction of in vitro fertilisation. I feel that the way in which these debates have mapped out over the past 20 or so years show that the arguments and voices raised are not simply isolated but are coming from within, and developing out of, the wider social concerns and issues of the time. In particular I focus on the distinct developments in the arguments of what I see as the two dominant voices of feminist writers and the scientific advocates of the technologies. I believe that the changes these voices go through both as separate from one another and also in relation to each other are signals of a larger shift in the growth and attitudes of society. I feel that one can trace, through the patterns and changes in these voices, an emerging postmodern context. Today, these debates and the voices that articulate them have diversified and are being discussed in a wider range of cultural texts. The convergence of narrative forms in the production and dissemination of information, the use of several differing types of discourse and shifting registers, inter-textuality and a plurality of opinion are all elements that are to be found in recent debates over the new technologies and their implications and I believe these all further signal this shift towards postmodernity. My introductory chapter attempts to set a context for my specific discussions of the impact of the ideological frameworks enveloping both science and the new reproductive technologies. I highlight he way in which modern science is deeply entrenched within a tradition of thinking which has traditionally constructed the Mind and the Body as two entities separate from each one another and how this had become "one of the most powerful dualities that inform Western ideologies of gender." (Bordo 1993:5) I argue that the divorce of the body and the mind , the separation and, most importantly, the genderisation of the two spheres is absolutely key to understanding the treatment of women both within the reproductive role specifically, and is also vital to an examination of the way that both science as an institution and the new reproductive technologies have developed. Simone de Beauvoir articulated this duality as one where woman has been cast as the body "weighed down by everything peculiar to it", whilst man sees himself as the "inevitable, like a pure idea, like the One, the All, the Absolute spirit." (3) I go on to discuss the far-reaching historicity of such a concept and its influence on ‘modern’ science. As a culture we place great faith in science as a discourse of truth and ‘fact’. However, science and knowledge are both inherently cultural products themselves; our culture influences what we ‘know’ scientifically. Science and research cannot be seen as separate from the cultural arena - they are undoubtedly products - developed and disseminated within culture. However, I feel that it is important not to simply place the recent developments in research and technologies - and their implications for women - within old frameworks and modes of thinking but to also situate them specifically within their own temporal, social and cultural locale. I go on to develop the idea that central to these developments in fertility research are issues about ‘knowledge’ and ‘progress’ and how perceptions of these have shifted within a framework of postmodern concerns and fears. Once I have established some of the historical, cultural and social contexts from which scientific and public ideas about female bodies and reproduction have developed, I move on to my next chapter to discuss in more detail the manner in which these ideas have impacted on the treatment of and attitudes towards pregnant women. I demonstrate the way that the pervasiveness of certain gender constructions within our society have underscored both medical and legal practices concerning pregnant women and the new reproductive technologies. I discuss issues surrounding the increasing medicalisation of pregnancy and the idea that pregnant women and their bodies are becoming more and more ‘invisible’ in the eyes of both the medical and the legal institutions. I go on to examine state constructs such as ‘informed consent’, bodily integrity and the newly acquired ‘super-status’ of the foetus in the light of the ethical and legal status of pregnant women. I attempt to provide a general overview of the extent to which women’s self-determination and legal subjectivity is being undermined in our society; how the duality of men as minds invested with power, while women are merely bodies, becomes even more apparent when discussing the legal and public status of a pregnant woman. In this next chapter, I intend to discuss whether the new reproductive technologies may provide a space for women to re-seize control over their reproductive behaviour, or whether the fact that the new technologies have developed from within existing socio-economic frameworks undermines this possibility. The New Reproductive Technologies - subversion or suppression? Liberation from within I have discussed ways in which women have been culturally trapped and disempowered by a specific ideological logic concerning female biology, conception and pregnancy. But what about when the scientific, or ‘natural’, perameters used historically to justify that position are irrevocably altered. One could argue that new reproductive technologies such as in vitro fertilisation and GIFT (Gamete Intrafallopian Transfer) are disrupting and detaching the power culturally invested in men during the process of heterosexual sex and conception, and have the potential to transfer the power of choice and autonomy onto women. The base reproductive function which has historically and culturally been seen as the locus of male ‘activity’, strength and dominance has become separated from the male body and been re-created as a clinical process and could be said to now be in the hands of women themselves. Indeed, over the past 20 years there has been much discussion from feminists on the potentially emancipating possibilities for women - for example in Shulamith Firestone’s The Dialectic of Sex. However, although I can see the theoretical emancipatory possibilities for women I cannot help but feel that this is liberation within - not liberation from. It is an empowerment from within the current status quo, and a very limited one at that. I am not denying that techniques such as IVF have provided many women and couples with a great deal of happiness and joy over the past 20 years - what I wish to contest is the notion that these technologies have, or are going to in the immediate future, provide any great possibility for a greater balance of power and equality between the sexes. I do not believe that they have helped to distance women from an ideological duality which informs almost every part of Western life. I believe that it is this ‘woman as victim of her body’ rationale that is really informing such discussion of the new reproductive and contraceptive techniques as liberating to women and that it is necessary to understand it within those terms. They are promoted as ‘freeing’ woman from her body - this is as a result of the body being seen as a cage, a prison from which one would want to be liberated if one was to live a full, cognisant life in which the mind can work efficiently and effectively, clearly, without the distractions of the body. In accepting the view of the new technologies as liberating we are also accepting that women are the victims and prisoners of their bodies. A lot of feminist work has been written on the subject of the lack of actual control women have over the development of the new reproductive technologies. Writers such as Arditti and Minden in their book Test-Tube Women are among those who note the fact that whilst women seem to be the ‘target’ of all this new attention, they are not in control - either at a professional level or as consumers. There is a widening concern expressed that the new technologies, instead of aiding women’s emancipation and reproductive freedom are in fact helping scientists to remain ‘in control’ of women’s bodies and lives.
They recognise and articulate the fact that science is a product of culture and reject claims of objectivity from scientists and researchers with the understanding that they represent a very special and privileged segment of society. The new reproductive technologies on the one hand are promoted as a ‘booming technology’ apparently devoted to women’s desires and needs yet it seems that the notion of women as ‘mere’ bodies is prevailing through their application. The woman as an entire entity, as a subject rather than an object, appears to be either invisible or, as in the medicalisation of pregnancy, women are either reduced to body parts or subsumed within the construct of an ‘acceptable’ heterosexual couple. For example, in the process of my research I contacted Sara Cox at Nottingham University’s research facility NURTURE which not only performs extensive research into new techniques of artificial reproduction but is also a working IVF clinic. She was kind enough to send me several documents about the centre and one of those was a ‘Patient Information Document’. This was an extensive document telling the patient the full details about the treatment and drugs that would be administered. All of the processes were pertaining to women and female reproductive systems yet at no point throughout the whole description of up to 9 medical procedures and regular administration of very powerful drugs was the woman referred to directly. Things such as ‘a human menstrual cycle’, ‘patient’, ‘ovaries’ and, near the end, ‘the female partner’ were occasionally mentioned but the whole issue of exactly who the document was addressing was never made explicit. No mention was made of any emotional or physical effects other than possible side effects of the drugs, which were many and varied and stated in bald clinical terms. However, I don’t share the feminist view that the sole motive that lies behind all this research is purely the thrill of control over women. I feel that the development of the new reproductive technologies have been characterised by a shift in such scientific motivations and reasonings as I mentioned in my first chapter. Perhaps it is the embodiment of a new drive to establish our own methods of control over the instabilities of life. Perhaps it is a ‘natural’ progression from understanding and accepting Darwin’s theory of evolution (something which now informs some of the core ways in which we see ourselves, our human role and our place in the larger system of life) to wanting to gain control over it. The dream of a "scientist-directed evolution" is not a new one. What is new is the fact that this dream is rapidly beginning to achieve the potential of becoming a reality. In 1981 Clifford Grobstein, a US biologist, policy commentator and advocate for IVF articulated this idea in his book From Chance to Purpose: An Appraisal of External Human Fertilisation. He states with a tone of great excitement that IVF or ‘external human fertilisation’ as he preferred to term it (thereby once more effectively divorcing the process from women’s bodies),
It seems to me that scientists are trained in the notion that knowledge is everything; that to have and increase knowledge is to progress - the pursuit of knowledge is all and the very purpose of human life and existence lies in this pursuit. So, in this, one of ‘the last frontiers of exploration’, it seems that women’s bodies are the frontier to be crossed, the latest thing to be studied and de-mystified. I would argue that the lack of identification of women as entire, whole, subjects is as a result of a way of thinking that diminishes the importance or value of women and their bodies. Women’s bodies, at least in the eyes of the scientist, are simply the subject matter - the ‘breakthrough’, the discovery, is the goal. Single-mindedness and ambition are the driving forces. In fact, the public and moral concerns in general, anything that may impede the speed and, most importantly, the funding, of research is considered an unnecessary irritation. Some scientists express the opinion that judgements of ethics and morals should be left entirely to the conscience of the individual scientist. A quote from a proponent of the scientist’s right to decide on questions of experimentation demonstrates how such constructs as ‘informed consent’ have actually aided scientists in their endeavours by protecting their interests whilst also pacifying the public,
When he talks of progress he means the progress of his own research and anyone who proposes ethical or moral questions which may be detrimental to the swift ‘progression’ of his own work is viewed ‘uncooperative’ The public are the enemy and continually threaten his own secular, sealed off little world of ‘research’ and, perhaps more importantly, urgently, his funding. McCance’s comments on the way that a state construct enables him to further his own research without fear of moral reprisals demonstrates the manner in which the state is wholeheartedly, yet indirectly, supporting the growth of the new embryo technologies. I feel that this encouragement of ambition and development within research has its basis in the economic potentials of gaining prestige on a world scale. There is a great deal of money to be made in the new embryo technologies and those possibilities are by no means limited to reproduction. For example,
What seems to have been crucially missed by Spallone’s point here, and indeed in many of the feminist arguments I have come across in my research, is the economic scope of the new reproductive technologies. I believe that economics and financial gain are actually the prime reasons for funding and research and wish to emphasise the importance of understanding the new technologies and research into fertility not just from within an ideological situe but also from within an enveloping and determining economic infrastructure. The economic agenda Naomi Pfeffer in her article ‘From private patients to privatisation’ in Stacey (ed.) Changing Human Reproduction (1992) speaks of the way that the privatisation of both birth control and fertility practices can be seen as a way for the government to still maintain, through regulatory legislation, control over the new technologies and to guide their application whilst at the same time avoiding any appearance of interfering in fertility or of an overt population policy. Meanwhile, the fact that the majority of what has become a veritable industry is available mainly within the private sector means that it is generating vast amounts of money in many areas with a minimum of pressure on the state for funding. According to Pfeffer, the private medical sector currently caters for a larger proportion of patients undergoing assisted reproduction than for any other elective surgical procedure - "3 out of 20 people who underwent elective surgery in England and Wales in 1986, and about 19 out of 20 women who underwent IVF and GIFT." (4) The IVF industry now means big business with each treatment cycle costing huge amounts of money for a procedure with only a limited chance of success. At the NURTURE centre in Nottingham, a research facility and therefore slightly lower in cost, the price for a ‘standard’ IVF treatment, at the end of 1996, is ?,700, with "an additional [?5] charge to any of the above treatments if donor sperm required." The programme seems to be approached as a commercial concern needing business administrators and managers,
Pfeffer points out the enormous amounts of money involved by quoting the case of Bourn Hall - the private clinic set up by Steptoe and Edwards in 1980 after the birth of Louise Brown. Bourn Hall was sold in 1987 to Ares-Serono - a multi-national company and one of the worlds major supplier of infertility drugs. Ares-Serono now boasts that it owns the largest IVF centre in the world, carrying out 2,500 IVF and GIFT cycles a year as well as a large number of frozen embryo replacement cycles, artificial insemination, surrogacy and other infertility treatments." (6) Ares-Serono is a medium sized international drug company with its executive headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland. It is now the world’s leading producer of fertility drugs which, in 1988, comprised 84 per cent of its turnover of $420.3m. I firmly believe that the research and development into both effective contraceptives and the new reproductive technologies has been strongly driven by economic imperatives. As I have already mentioned, the financial gain from both the private sector and from the pharmaceutical companies is enormous; however, I also believe that there are other factors that can be situated within a broader context of both population control and the minimisation of unwanted economic burdens on the state. It seems to me that with periodic changes in social and moral values towards single mothers and pregnant women, has come an increased financial burden on the state. It has only really been since the second half of this century that attitudes towards unmarried mothers have relaxed and it is now no longer considered ‘acceptable’ to shove single pregnant women into ‘homes’ or asylums. The women in these ‘homes’ had their children taken away from them at birth, and the child was ‘generously’ donated to a married couple more capable of assuming economic responsibility for it - thereby relieving the state of one of many unwanted and ‘unnecessary’ burdens and an effective way of having the child reabsorbed back into the more acceptable, often wealthier, sector of the economy where it was more likely to become a ‘productive’ member of the workforce and of society. Also, abortion, since the liberalisation of the Abortion Act in 1967 due to similar social pressures, has also become largely the economic responsibility of the state. Before the 1967 Act women had to find the funding themselves for a ‘backstreet’ and illegal operation, if they could find it, or else resort to ‘homemade’, or ‘traditional’, and often agonising and fatal, measures. The ‘problems’ brought about by such social reformation have meant that the state can no longer simply re-distribute the economic burden of ‘unwanted’ children and single-parent families through the enforced adoption of children - women are now claiming the right to keep their children as well as often requiring that the state pay for a termination and medical bills if they do not want the child. Perhaps, over the past 30 or 40 years the state has recognised that the best solution for the economy in the long run is to encourage people not to reproduce in the first place, and since social stigmas developed by the ideological state apparatus are gradually dissolving, an increase in the availability of contraception and information about it - once seen as encouraging people to have sex (and reproduce, which was not wanted) - has been seen as the answer, perhaps in more subtle ways than we imagine. One outcome of the promotion of contraceptives such as the Pill since the 1960, and an outcome which I am sure cannot have come as a complete surprise to researchers and doctors is the fact that as so many thousands of women are consuming large doses of these hormones in order to ‘disable’ their reproductive systems, albeit temporarily, they are also urinating them away. Now, it has been medical knowledge for a very long time that humans excrete hormones in our urine - that is, after all, how doctors usually test to see if a woman is pregnant; so, surely, all of these hormones, consumed and excreted over such a long time by so many women must have some sort of accumulative effect in Britain’s water supplies. Recent studies have begun to tentatively suggest that increased amounts of the female hormone, oestrogen, in our water supplies, are not being picked up by cleansing systems, and may well be having an adverse effect on male reproductive systems. This theory is just one of many suggestions as to the reasons behind falling fertility rates in Britain. At present IVF is being touted as the solution to the growing problem of infertility.
However, to actually tackle these problems would not be in the state’s interests. The immense expenditure involved would prove detrimental to the economy and may only result in an even larger population problem. However, ‘solutions’ like the new reproductive technologies have been carefully planned to reap both financial and social rewards whilst also raising the country’s world medical-scientific profile as a forerunner in medical and technological innovation. IVF is proving to be a very profitable diversionary tactic from the state’s more urgent, but more costly, responsibilities. At the moment the state is promoting the ‘sophisticated’, ‘hi-tech’ solution but these techniques are really only available to the very select few - in short, those who fit the profile of the sort of people that the state feels should be ‘given’ the right - by their magnanimous selves - to have children. The highly restrictive costs and ‘selection procedures’ of these techniques ensure that the correct people are wealthy (and will therefore be able to take full economic responsibility for any potential offspring). Due to present racial and sexual economic inequalities in this country, there is a much greater chance that the successful ‘applicants’ will be predominantly white, and will be part of a heterosexual couple where the male is the main earner. One could argue that this in turn ensures that the woman would be more likely to take on the role of main carer or nurturer and the larger share of domestic labour.
Meanwhile, the state has recognised the potentials of the new technologies, if left ‘unguarded’, to challenge and open up to exposure, and therefore transformation, some of society’s core ideologies enveloping and presenting as ‘normative’ particular constructions around heterosexuality, the ‘natural’ roles and attributes of men and women and the idea of the family unit as consisting only of children born within the confines of a heterosexual marriage. They could have the latent potential to remove both the ideological and physical limitations of these reproductive and familial constructs and open up opportunities for such marginalised groups as gay, lesbian, transgendered, disabled, and now older people to make a choice about a family. However, as I have attempted to discuss in my previous chapters it is entirely necessary to recognise that all of these technologies have been developed by, and are being practised from within, a socio-medical environment which is fundamentally male-dominated and which is also funded and regulated by male-dominated institutions. As a result, these opportunities are being undermined by the intricate medico-legal regulatory infrastructure that has been erected around the new technologies and whose first interest is in maintaining the present power balance. For instance, a late amendment to the 1990 Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act, Section 13(5) states that,
In most public and private assisted conception clinics the interpretation of this vague statement has meant that the final decision is left, in effect, to the clinicians own sense of ‘moral’ judgements (in much the same way as abortion today). Here, science is being used as a tool to cast moral and social judgement on anyone who refuses to conform to patriarchal ‘norms’. Few clinician, it seems, will offer IVF to those with ‘inappropriate’ or absent relationships; in effect this means that treatment services are denied to single women or to lesbian couples. Section 13[5] appears to have been put in as an amendment expressly to prevent the creation of one-parent families through assisted reproduction (and implicitly to prevent lesbians from receiving treatment.) Even such ‘liberally’ minded doctors as the Italian IVF doctor Dr. Severino Antorini (who regularly assists post-menopausal women who wish to have children on the grounds that all women, even those over 55, have a right to conceive with the help of modern technologies) seems to harbour particular prejudices. His own double-standard was revealed in his refusal to treat Martina Navratilova, ostensibly on the grounds that he wouldn’t treat lesbians because a child needs a father figure. Well, what about the children of 60 year old mothers who may risk losing either parent at any time? It seems that instead of actually opening up opportunities and broadening possibilities for a greater acceptance and tolerance for ‘difference’ in our society these avenues are actually being purposefully bunged up - loophole by loophole. Conclusion Through the course of this article I have attempted to draw together a fair amount of ideas concerning state and economic dynamics, and existing ideological structures to produce an overview of a topic which I feel continues to be of huge interest to humankind. I have sought to show how all of these things are still co-dependent today yet also to demonstrate how periodic changes have resulted in a shift in the balance of priorities and motivations behind science and technology in general and within the new reproductive technologies specifically. Further issues that have been raised whilst working on this piece include other areas of debate that I would have liked to have examined more closely but that could well have ended up as another whole article. These included issues about eugenics and the new genetic technologies, and ethical debates surrounding the rights of the embryo; also the fact that many of the restrictive criteria surrounding accessibility to new reproductive techniques appear to share many disturbing parallels with the ‘reasonings’ used to justify involuntary sterilisations in the past - for example, the ‘inability to care’ model; I would also have liked to have done an extensive investigation into the role of language and register within these debates. Another topic that would be worthy of greater examination would be the variations in legalities governing the new reproductive technologies all around the world. The huge disparities in moral codes and rules governing the availability of techniques such as IVF and surrogacy between countries are, I believe, hugely revealing of the extent to which science and its applications are subject to a great deal of pressure and influence from the particular historical and political contexts of that country. A detailed comparison of the international differences in attitudes and laws governing the use of the new reproductive techniques may well provide concrete evidence of the ways in which a particular socio-political history has contributed to such technologies evolving as yet another arena for cultural and political struggle. One example of this, as quoted by Stacey (1993:17), would be the fact that while in Britain we have agreed to permit research on an embryo under licence for the first 14 days after conception, in Germany research on a human embryo is illegal. Hubbard (1986:239), felt that this was as a direct result of a history where "medical experiments on human beings remain a shameful memory." These are all topics and issues which came out of my research which could require a full body of work in themselves but I most strongly feel that the role that the economy and economic gain play in motivating and directing technological development and research into fertility is currently underestimated and a more informed and detailed approach to the topic is needed. I feel that despite initially feeling ‘over-faced’ with the sheer volume of work that has already been done on these issues, I have come away feeling that there is a definitive need for newer, fresher approaches to a subject which is evolving at an incredibly rapid pace within social perameters that seem at present to be entering an intermediate phase of development. Notes
Bibliography Arditti, Rita (eds) - Test-Tube Women (1984) Pandora Press - London Bordo, Susan - Reproductive Technologies: Feminism, Western Culture and the Body (1993) University of California Press - Berkeley, Los Angeles and London Cusine D.J. - New Reproductive Technologies: a Legal Perspective (1990) Daniels, S. - Byrthrite - (1991) - Methuen - London Douglas, G.- Law, Fertility and Reproduction (1991) Sweet and Maxwell - London Edwards J. - The Technologies of Procreation: Kinship in the age of Assisted Conception -(1993) Gower Publishing - Aldershot and New York Fausto-Sterling, Anne - Myths of Gender: Biological Theories About Women and Men (1985)Basic Books, Inc - New York Hoffman Baruch, Elaine (eds) - Embryo’s, Ethics and Women’s Rights: Exploring the New Reproductive Technologies (1988) Harrington Park Press - New York and London Homans, Hilary (ed.) - The Sexual Politics of Reproduction (1985) Gower Publishing - Aldershot and New York Jackson, Kate - "The art of the possible" - British Journal of Midwifery - 1997, Vol 5, No.2 Kitzinger, S - ‘What’s wrong with Electronic Fetal Monitoring?" Pregnancy and Birth Magazine March 1997 pp72-4 Lee, Robert (eds) - Birthrights: Law and Ethics at the Beginnings of Life (1989) Martin, Emily - The Woman in the Body: A Cultural Analysis of Reproduction (1987) Open University Press - Milton Keynes Maudsley, Henry - "Sex in mind and in education" Popular Science Monthly 5 (1874):200 Mclean, Sheila (ed.) - Legal Issues in Human Reproduction (1989) Gower Publishing - Aldershot and New York Nicholl J P et al - "Role of the private sector in elective surgery in England and Wales, 1986" - British Medical Journal 298: 243-7 Singer P. and Wells D. - The Reproduction Revolution: New Ways of Making Babies (1984) Spallone, P and Steinberg D.L. (eds) - Made To Order: The Myth of Reproductive and Genetic Progress (1987) Pergamon Press - New York and Oxford Spallone, Patricia - Beyond Conception: The New Politics of Reproduction (1989) MacMillan Education - Basingstoke and London Stabile, C - ‘Shooting the mother: fetal photography and the politics of disappearance’ from Feminism and the Technological Fix (1994) Manchester: Manchester University Press Stacey, Meg (ed.) - Changing Human Reproduction: Social Science Perspectives (1992) Sage Publications - London Stanworth, Michelle (ed.) - Reproductive Technologies: Gender, Motherhood and Medicine (1987) Polity Press - Oxford Templeton, Allan - Reproductive Medicine and the Law (1990) Churchill Livingstone - New York and London Van Dyck, Jose - Manufacturing Babies and Reproductive Consent (1995) Macmillan Press - Basingstoke and London | |
|
|
