Abstract
Most opponents of somatic cell nuclear transfer and embryonic stem cell technologies base their arguments on the twin assertions that the embryo is either a human being or a potential human being, and that it is wrong to destroy a human being or potential human being in order to produce stem cell lines. Proponents’ justifications of stem cell research are more varied, but not enough to escape the charge of obsession with the status of the embryo. What unites the two warring sides in ‘the stem cell wars’ is that women are equally invisible to both: ‘the lady vanishes.’ Yet the most legitimate property in the body is that which women possess in their reproductive tissue and the products of their reproductive labour. By drawing on the accepted characterisation in the common law of property as a bundle of rights, and on a Hegelian model of contract as mutual recognition, we can lessen the impact of the tendency to regard women and their ova as merely receptacles and women’s reproductive labour as unimportant.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Boyle, J. (2003). The second enclosure movement and the construction of the public domain. Law and Contemporary Problems, 66, 33–74.
Brace, L. (1994). The politics of property: Labour, freedom and belonging. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
CCNE (Comite Consultatif National d’Ethique) (2002). Umbilical cord blood banks for autologous use or for research. Paris: CCNE
CCNE (Comite Consultatif National d’Ethique) and Nationaler Ethikrat. Opinion no. 77 (2003). Ethical problems raised by the collected biological material and associated information data: ‘Biobanks’, ‘biolibraries’. Paris: CCNE.
Cohen, G. A. (1997). Self-ownership, freedom and equality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Connolly, W. E. (1988). Political theory and modernity. Oxford: Blackwell.
Dickenson, D. (1997). Procuring gametes for research and therapy: The case for unisex altruism. Journal of Medical Ethics, 23, 93–95.
Dickenson, D. (1997). Property, women and politics. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Dickenson, D. (2001). Property and women’s alienation from their own reproductive labour. Bioethics, 15, 205–217.
Dickenson, D. (2002). Commodification of reproductive tissue: Issues for feminist and development ethics. Developing World Bioethics, 2, 55–63.
Dickenson, D. (2003). Genetic research and the economic paradigm. (Einwilligung, Kommodifizierung und Vortelsausgleich in der Genforschung.). In L. Honnefelder, D. Mieth, P. Propping, L. Siep, & C. Wiesemann (Eds.), Das Genetische Wissen und die Zukunft des Menschen (pp. 139–151). Berlin: De Gruyter.
Dickenson, D. (2004). Consent, commodification and benefit-sharing in genetic research. Developing World Bioethics, 4, 109–124.
Dickenson, D. (2004). The threatened trade in human ova. Nature Reviews Genetics, 5, 167.
Dickenson, D. (2005) Human tissue and global ethics. Genomics, Society and Policy,1, 41–53. Available from: http:// www.gspjournal.com.
Dickenson, D. Property in the body. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (in press).
Dodds, S. (2003). Women, commodification and embryonic stem-cell research. In J. Humber, & R. F. Almeder (Eds.), Biomedical ethics reviews: Stem cell research (pp. 149–175). Totowa, New Jersey: Humana Press.
Faden, R. R., Dawson, L., Bateman-House, A. S., Agnew, D. M., Bok, H., Brock, D. W., et al. (2003). Public stem cell banks: Considerations of justice in stem cell research and therapy. Hastings Center Report, 33(6):13–27.
Fagot-Largeault, A. (1998)Ownership of the human body: Judicial and legislative responses in France. In H. ten Have, & J. Welie (Eds.), Ownership of the human body: Philosophical considerations on the use of the human body and its parts in healthcare (pp. 115–140). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Ferguson, K. E. (1993). The man question: Visions of subjectivity in feminist theory. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Grey, T. (1980). The disintegration of property. In J. R. Pennock & J. Chapman (Eds.), Nomos: Property, 22 (pp. 69–85). New York: New York University Press.
Harris, J. W. (1996). Property and Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Harrison, T. (1999). Globalization and the trade in human body parts. Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology, 36, 21–35.
Hegel, G. W. F. (1967). The philosophy of right. Knox TN, translator. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hohfeld, W. N. (1978). Fundamental legal conceptions as applied in judicial reasoning. 1919. In W.W. Cook (Ed.), Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press.
Holland, S. (2001). Contested commodities at both ends of life: Buying and selling embryos, gametes and body tissue. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, 11, 263–284.
Holm, S. (2002). Going to the roots of the stem cell controversy. Bioethics, 16, 493–507.
Honore, A. M. (1961). Ownership. In A. G. Guest (Ed.), Oxford essays in jurisprudence (pp. 108–1200). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
HUGO (Human Genome Organisation) Ethics Council (2000). Statement on benefit-sharing. Vancouver: HUGO.
Hwang, W. S. et al. (2004). Evidence of a pluripotent human embryonic stem cell line derived from a cloned blastocyst. Science 307. Available from: http://www.science.com.
Hwang, W. S., et al. (2005). Patient-specific embryonic stem cells derived from human SCNT blastocysts. Science, 306, 1777–1783.
Jacobs, A., Dwyer, J., & Lee, P. (2001). Seventy ova. Hastings Center Report, 31, 12–14.
Lanzendorf, S. E., et al. (2001). Use of human gametes obtained from anonymous donors for the production of human embryonic stem cell lines. Fertility and Society, 76, 132–137.
Lazar, K. (1999). Wonder drug for men alleged to cause harm in women. Boston Herald. Aug 22.
Locke, J. (1947). The second treatise on civil government. 1689. In H. R. Penniman (Ed.), On politics and education. New York: Van Nostrand.
MacKinnon, C. A. (1989). Toward a feminist theory of the state. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Macklin, R. (1996). What is wrong with commodification? In C. R. Cohen (Ed.), New ways of making babies: The case of egg donation (pp. 106–121). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Mahoney, J. (1990). An essay on surrogacy and feminist thought. In L. Gostin (Ed.), Surrogate motherhood: Politics and privacy (pp. 183–197). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Marshall, E. (2000). The business of stem cells. Science, 287, 3180–3184.
McHale, J. (2000). Waste, ownership and bodily products. Health Care Analysis, 8, 123–135.
McLeod, C., & Baylis, F. (2006). Feminists on the inalienability of human embryos. Hypatia, 21(1), 1–14
Meilander, G. (2001). The point of a ban, or, how to think about stem cell research. Hastings Center Report, 31, 9–15.
Momberger, K. (2002). Breeder at law. Columbia Journal of Gender and Law, 11, 127–174.
Montgomery, J. (1997). Health care law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Moore v. Regents of the University of California (1990), 51 Cal 3d 120, 793P 2d, 271 Cal Rptr 126.
Morgan, D. (2004). Women’s reproductive rights and the future of Europe. Paper delivered at the second Reproductive Rights workshop of the EC FP5 Network for European Women’s Rights, San Sebastian, Spain, February 6th.
Murray, T. (2005). Will new ways of creating stem cells dodge the objections? Hastings Center Report, 35, 8–9.
Norsigian, J. (2005). Egg donation for IVF and stem cell research: Time to weigh the risks to women’s health. Available from: http://www.ourbodiesourselves/orgbook/companion.
Parfit, T. (2005). Beauty salons fuel trade in aborted babies. The Observer. Apr 17.
Pateman, C. (1988). The sexual contract. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Penner, J. E. (1996).The ‘bundle of rights’ picture of property. UCLA Law Review, 43, 711–721.
Penner, J. E. (1997). The idea of property in law. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Radin, M. J. (1996). Contested commodities: The trouble with trade in sex, children, body parts and other things. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Resnik, D. B. (2002). The commercialisation of stem cells: Ethical and policy issues. Health Care Analysis, 10, 127–154.
Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG) Ethics Committee (2005). Opinion on Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority consultation document, The regulation of donor-assisted conception. London: RCOG.
Ryan, A. (1984). Property and political theory. Oxford: Blackwell.
Schneider, I., & Schumann, C. (2002). Stem cells, therapeutic cloning, embryo research – Women as raw material suppliers for science and industry. In Reprokult (Women’s Forum for Reproductive Medicine) (Eds.), Reproductive medicine and genetic engineering: Women between self-determination and societal standardisation (pp. 70–76). Koln: Federal Centre for Health Education.
Schroeder, J. L. (1994). Chix nix bundle-o-stix: A feminist critique of the disaggregation of property. Michigan Law Review, 93, 239–255.
Stammzellgesetz (Gesetz zur Sicherstellung des Embryonengeschutzes im Zusammenhang mit Einfurch und Verwendung menschlicher embryonaler Stammzellen).2002, June 28. Bundesgesetzblatt Jahrgang 2002, Teil I, no. 42, p. 2277.
UK House of Commons Select Committee on Science and Technology. Fifth Report. 2005. Available from: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/cm200405
Waldby, C. Contribution to ‘Biopolitics, bioethics and biotechnology’ panel, International Association of Bioethics Seventh Conference, Sydney: 2004: Nov 9.
Waldby, C., & Mitchell, R. (2006). Tissue economies: Gifts, commodities and biovalue in late capitalism. Durham, NC; Duke University Press.
Waldron, J. (1988). The right to private property. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Watts, J., & Sample, I. (2005). Cloning fraud hits search for stem cell cures. The Guardian. Dec 24; Sect. A: 1 (col. 1).
Weir, J. F. (Ed.) (1998). Stored tissue samples: Ethical, legal and public policy implications. Iowa City: Iowa University Press.
Younge, G. (2005). Embryo scientist quits team over ethics fear. The Guardian. Nov 14; Sect. A: 19 (col. 1).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Dickenson, D.L. The Lady Vanishes: What’s Missing from the Stem Cell Debate. Bioethical Inquiry 3, 43–54 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-006-9003-8
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-006-9003-8