The Limits of Reproductive Autonomy: Prenatal Testing, Harm and Disability

  • Catherine MillsEmail author
Part of the International Library of Ethics, Law, and the New Medicine book series (LIME, volume 49)


I argued in the previous chapter that Foucault's account of the self-formative practice of ethics allows for a rich account of reproductive autonomy. His view of freedom as a practice of self-formation highlights the positive process of making oneself up in relation to norms and rules, and helps to bring out the significance that reproduction may have in human lives. It also highlights the way that the limits of reproductive autonomy are tested and established in practice. In this and the following chapters, I want to consider in more detail the ways that reproductive and genetic technologies problematise the limits of reproductive liberty, and in doing so, contribute to the constitution of the social world in which we must all live.


Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis Deaf Child Prenatal Testing Worth Living Human Enhancement 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Anon. Couple ‘choose’ to have deaf baby. BBC News Online. (accessed: 20 April, 2011).
  2. Archard, David. 2004. Wrongful life. Philosophy 79:403–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Asch, Adrienne. 1988. Reproductive technology and disability. In Reproductive laws for the 1990s, eds. Sherrill Cohen, and Nadine Taub, 69–124. Clifton, NJ: Humana Press.Google Scholar
  4. Asch, Adrienne. 2000. Why I haven’t changed my mind about prenatal diagnosis: Reflections and refinements. In Prenatal diagnosis and disability rights, eds. Erik, Parens, and Adrienne Asch, 234–258. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bennett, Rebecca. 2009. The fallacy of the principle of procreative beneficence. Bioethics 23(5):265–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bourdieu, Pierre. 1991. Language and symbolic power, ed. John B. Thompson (trans: Raymond, Gino, and Matthew Adamson. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  7. Buchanan, Allen. 1996. Choosing who will be disabled: Genetic intervention and the morality of inclusion. Social Philosophy and Policy 13:18–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Davis, Lennard J. 1995. Enforcing normalcy: Disability, deafness and the body. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  9. Derrida, Jacques. 1997. Of grammatology (trans: Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Diprose, Rosalyn. 1994. The bodies of women: Ethics, embodiment and sexual difference. New York and London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  11. Feinberg, Joel. 1986. Wrongful Life and the counterfactual element in harming. Social Philosophy and Policy 4(1):145–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Feinberg, Joel. 1987. Harm to others. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Foucault, Michel. 1987. The use of pleasure: The history of sexuality. Vol. 2 (trans: Hurley, Robert). London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  14. Glover, Jonathan. 2006. Choosing children: Genes, disability, and design. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Grosz, Elizabeth. 1994. Volatile bodies: Toward a corporeal feminism. St Leonards: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
  16. Harris, John. 1992. Wonderwoman and superman: The ethics of biotechnology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Harris, John. 1998. Clones, genes and immortality: Ethics and the genetic revolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Harris, John. 2007. Enhancing evolution: The ethical case for making better people. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Leder, Drew. 1990. The absent body. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  20. Levy, Neil. 2002. Deafness, culture and choice. Journal of Medical Ethics 28(5):284–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mill, John Stuart. 1989. On liberty and other writings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Mundy, Liza. 2002. A world of their own. The Washington Post Weekly Magazine, 31 March.Google Scholar
  23. Nelson, James Lindemann. 1998. The meaning of the act: Reflections on the expressivist force of reproductive decision making and policy. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 8(2):165–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Nelson, James Lindemann. 2000. Prenatal diagnosis, personal identity and disability. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 10(3):213–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Nussbaum, Martha. 2006. Frontiers of justice: Disability, nationality, species membership. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Parens, Erik, and Adrienne Asch. 1999. Special supplement: The disability rights critique of prenatal testing reflections and recommendations. The Hastings Center Report 29(5):S1–S22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Parfit, Derek. 1984. Reasons and persons. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  28. Paterson, Kevin, and Bill Hughes. 1999. Disability studies and phenomenology: The carnal politics of everyday life. Disability and Society 14(5):597–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Press, Nancy. 2000. Assessing the expressive character of prenatal testing: The choices made or the choices made available? In Prenatal diagnosis and disability rights, eds. Erik Parens and Adrienne Asch, 214–223. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Preston, Paul M. 1994. Mother father deaf: Living between sound and silence. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Savulescu, Julian. 2001. Procreative beneficence: Why we should select the best children. Bioethics 15(5/6):413–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Savulescu, Julian. 2002. Deaf lesbians, ‘designer disability’, and the future of medicine. British Medical Journal 325:771–773.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Savulescu, Julian. 2008. Procreative beneficence: Reasons not to have disabled children. In The sorting society: The ethics of genetic screening and therapy, eds. Loane Skene and Janna Thompson, 51–68. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Savulescu, Julian, and Guy kahane. 2009. The moral obligation to create children with the best chance of the best life. Bioethics 23(5):274–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Savulescu, Julian, and Nick Bostrom. (2009) Human Enhancement. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Scully, Jackie Leach. 2008. Disability bioethics: Moral bodies, moral difference. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
  37. Sparrow, Robert. 2005. Defending deaf culture: The case of cochlear implants. The Journal of Political Philosophy 13(2):135–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sparrow, Robert. 2007. Procreative beneficence, obligation and eugenics. Genomics, Society and Policy 3(3):43–59.Google Scholar
  39. Steinbock, Bonnie. 1986. The logical case for ‘wrongful life’. Hastings Center Report 16(2):15–20.Google Scholar
  40. Tremain, Shelley. 2001. On the government of disability. Social Theory and Practice 27(1):617–636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Wendell, Sue. 1996. The rejected body. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  42. Young, Iris Marion. 2005. Pregnant embodiment: Subjectivity and alienation. In On female body experience. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Values, Ethics and Law in Medicine and Unit for History and Philosophy of ScienceUniversity of SydneyCamperdownAustralia

Personalised recommendations