Feminist Legal Studies

, Volume 18, Issue 3, pp 299–308 | Cite as

Reproductive Autonomy and Regulation: Challenges to Feminism

Shelley Day Sclater, Fatemeh Ebtehaj, Emily Jackson and Martin Richards (eds), Regulating Autonomy: Sex, Reproduction and Family. Hart Publishing, Oxford, 2009, xiv + 267 pp, price £35 (PB), ISBN: 9781841139463 Naomi R. Cahn, Test Tube Families: Why the Fertility Market Needs Legal Regulation. New York University Press, New York, 2009, viii + 295 pp, price $US30 (HB), ISBN: 9780814716823
Book Review


  1. American Society for Reproductive Medicine Ethics Committee. 2007. Financial compensation for oocyte donors. Fertility and Sterility 88: 305–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Biggs, Hazel. 2003. A pretty fine line. Feminist Legal Studies 11: 291–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brazier, Margaret, and Emma Cave. 2007. Medicine, patients and the law, 4th ed. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  4. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2007. Assisted reproductive technology success rates: National summary and fertility reports 13. http://www.cdc.gov/ART/ART2005. Accessed 3 May 2010.
  5. Corea, Gena. 1985. The mother machine: Reproductive technologies from artificial insemination to artificial wombs. London: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
  6. Day Sclater, Shelley, and Christine Piper. 2001. Social exclusion and the welfare of the child. Journal of Law and Society 28: 409–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Devine, Karen. 2010. Risky business? The risks and benefits of umbilical cord blood collection. Medical Law Review 18: 330–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dworkin, Gerald. 1988. The theory and practice of autonomy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Friedman, Marilyn. 2006. Autonomy, gender, politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Greer, Germaine. 1985. Sex and destiny: The politics of human fertility. London: Picador.Google Scholar
  11. Gurmankin, Andrea, Jonathan Baron, John Hershey, and Peter Ubel. 2002. The role of physicians’ recommendations in medical treatment decisions. Medical Decision Making 22: 262–271.Google Scholar
  12. Herring, Jonathan. 2010. Medical law and ethics, 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Jackson, Emily. 2001. Regulating reproduction: Law, technology and autonomy. Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
  14. Jackson, Emily. 2002. Conception and the irrelevance of the welfare principle. Modern Law Review 65: 176–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Keown, John. 2002. Euthanasia, ethics and public policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Mackenzie, Catriona, and Natalie Stoljar. 2000. Relational autonomy: Feminist perspectives on autonomy, agency and the social self. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Mill, John Stuart. 1859/1948. On liberty. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. President’s Council on Bioethics. 2004. Reproduction and responsibility: The regulation of new biotechnologies. http://www.bioethics.gov/reports/reproductionandresponsibility/_pcbe_final_reproduction_and_responsibility.pdf. Accessed 10 May 2010.
  19. Sunstein, Cass R., and Richard H. Thaler. 2003. Libertarian paternalism is not an oxymoron. University of Chicago Law Review 70: 1159–1202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. West, Robin. 1988. Jurisprudence and gender. University of Chicago Law Review 55: 1–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Wolfenden Committee. 1957. The Wolfenden Committee report on homosexual offences and prostitution in England. London: HMSO.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of LawUniversity of SouthamptonHighfield, SouthamptonUK

Personalised recommendations