Skip to main content
Log in

The Lady Vanishes: What’s Missing from the Stem Cell Debate

  • Published:
Journal of Bioethical Inquiry Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Boyle, J. (2003). The second enclosure movement and the construction of the public domain. Law and Contemporary Problems, 66, 33–74.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Brace, L. (1994). The politics of property: Labour, freedom and belonging. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  3. CCNE (Comite Consultatif National d’Ethique) (2002). Umbilical cord blood banks for autologous use or for research. Paris: CCNE

    Google Scholar 

  4. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Cohen, G. A. (1997). Self-ownership, freedom and equality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Connolly, W. E. (1988). Political theory and modernity. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Dickenson, D. (1997). Procuring gametes for research and therapy: The case for unisex altruism. Journal of Medical Ethics, 23, 93–95.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Dickenson, D. (1997). Property, women and politics. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Dickenson, D. (2001). Property and women’s alienation from their own reproductive labour. Bioethics, 15, 205–217.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Dickenson, D. (2002). Commodification of reproductive tissue: Issues for feminist and development ethics. Developing World Bioethics, 2, 55–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Dickenson, D. (2004). Consent, commodification and benefit-sharing in genetic research. Developing World Bioethics, 4, 109–124.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Dickenson, D. (2004). The threatened trade in human ova. Nature Reviews Genetics, 5, 167.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Dickenson, D. (2005) Human tissue and global ethics. Genomics, Society and Policy,1, 41–53. Available from: http:// www.gspjournal.com.

  15. Dickenson, D. Property in the body. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (in press).

  16. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  17. 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Ferguson, K. E. (1993). The man question: Visions of subjectivity in feminist theory. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  20. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Harris, J. W. (1996). Property and Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Harrison, T. (1999). Globalization and the trade in human body parts. Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology, 36, 21–35.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Hegel, G. W. F. (1967). The philosophy of right. Knox TN, translator. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Hohfeld, W. N. (1978). Fundamental legal conceptions as applied in judicial reasoning. 1919. In W.W. Cook (Ed.), Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press.

  25. 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.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Holm, S. (2002). Going to the roots of the stem cell controversy. Bioethics, 16, 493–507.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Honore, A. M. (1961). Ownership. In A. G. Guest (Ed.), Oxford essays in jurisprudence (pp. 108–1200). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  28. HUGO (Human Genome Organisation) Ethics Council (2000). Statement on benefit-sharing. Vancouver: HUGO.

    Google Scholar 

  29. 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.

  30. Hwang, W. S., et al. (2005). Patient-specific embryonic stem cells derived from human SCNT blastocysts. Science, 306, 1777–1783.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Jacobs, A., Dwyer, J., & Lee, P. (2001). Seventy ova. Hastings Center Report, 31, 12–14.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. 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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Lazar, K. (1999). Wonder drug for men alleged to cause harm in women. Boston Herald. Aug 22.

  34. Locke, J. (1947). The second treatise on civil government. 1689. In H. R. Penniman (Ed.), On politics and education. New York: Van Nostrand.

    Google Scholar 

  35. MacKinnon, C. A. (1989). Toward a feminist theory of the state. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  36. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  37. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Marshall, E. (2000). The business of stem cells. Science, 287, 3180–3184.

    Google Scholar 

  39. McHale, J. (2000). Waste, ownership and bodily products. Health Care Analysis, 8, 123–135.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. McLeod, C., & Baylis, F. (2006). Feminists on the inalienability of human embryos. Hypatia, 21(1), 1–14

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Meilander, G. (2001). The point of a ban, or, how to think about stem cell research. Hastings Center Report, 31, 9–15.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Momberger, K. (2002). Breeder at law. Columbia Journal of Gender and Law, 11, 127–174.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Montgomery, J. (1997). Health care law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Moore v. Regents of the University of California (1990), 51 Cal 3d 120, 793P 2d, 271 Cal Rptr 126.

  45. 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.

  46. Murray, T. (2005). Will new ways of creating stem cells dodge the objections? Hastings Center Report, 35, 8–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. 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.

  48. Parfit, T. (2005). Beauty salons fuel trade in aborted babies. The Observer. Apr 17.

  49. Pateman, C. (1988). The sexual contract. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Penner, J. E. (1996).The ‘bundle of rights’ picture of property. UCLA Law Review, 43, 711–721.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Penner, J. E. (1997). The idea of property in law. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Radin, M. J. (1996). Contested commodities: The trouble with trade in sex, children, body parts and other things. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Resnik, D. B. (2002). The commercialisation of stem cells: Ethical and policy issues. Health Care Analysis, 10, 127–154.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Ryan, A. (1984). Property and political theory. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  56. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Schroeder, J. L. (1994). Chix nix bundle-o-stix: A feminist critique of the disaggregation of property. Michigan Law Review, 93, 239–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. 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.

  59. UK House of Commons Select Committee on Science and Technology. Fifth Report. 2005. Available from: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/cm200405

  60. Waldby, C. Contribution to ‘Biopolitics, bioethics and biotechnology’ panel, International Association of Bioethics Seventh Conference, Sydney: 2004: Nov 9.

  61. Waldby, C., & Mitchell, R. (2006). Tissue economies: Gifts, commodities and biovalue in late capitalism. Durham, NC; Duke University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Waldron, J. (1988). The right to private property. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Watts, J., & Sample, I. (2005). Cloning fraud hits search for stem cell cures. The Guardian. Dec 24; Sect. A: 1 (col. 1).

  64. Weir, J. F. (Ed.) (1998). Stored tissue samples: Ethical, legal and public policy implications. Iowa City: Iowa University Press.

  65. Younge, G. (2005). Embryo scientist quits team over ethics fear. The Guardian. Nov 14; Sect. A: 19 (col. 1).

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Donna L. Dickenson.

Rights and permissions

Reprints 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

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-006-9003-8

Keywords

Navigation