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
  • Hazel Biggs
Book Review

Feminist thought has long grappled with the concept of autonomy, questioning for instance, whether it exists, how far it extends, and what is the nature of its relationship with liberal notions of atomised, self-interested individuals. Likewise, in relation to fertility and its treatment or management, there are a range of feminist approaches, which Naomi Cahn sees as largely a matter of conflicts of interest between the parties concerned—women and men, the fertile and infertile, the children produced, gamete and embryo donors and health care professionals. In their own style, each of these books taps into these narratives in ways which are more or less explicit. The monograph Test Tube Families explores autonomy implicitly by examining the nature of relationships involved in the process of assisted conception using medical technology, and focusing on the regulatory environment in the USA. By contrast, Regulating Autonomy, an edited collection of 13 chapters divided into two parts,...


  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. 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. 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