Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Philosophical Feminist Bioethics

Past, Present, and Future

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 February 2015

Abstract:

The end of the last century was a particularly vibrant period for feminist bioethics. Almost two decades on, we reflect on the legacy of the feminist critique of bioethics and investigate the extent to which it has been successful and what requires more attention yet. We do this by examining the past, present, and future: we draw out three feminist concerns that emerged in this period—abstraction, individualism, and power—and consider three feminist responses—relationality, particularity, and justice—and we finish with some thoughts about the future.

Type
Special Section: Philosophical Bioethics—Its State and Future
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.

References

1. For a useful list of feminist bioethics work, see Donchin A. Feminist bioethics. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy; 2012 Sept (cited 2014 July 5); available at http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2012/entries/feminist-bioethics/ (last accessed 13 Aug 2014).

2. Wolf, SM, ed. Feminism and Bioethics: Beyond Reproduction. New York: Oxford University Press; 1996.Google Scholar

3. Tong, R. Feminist Approaches to Bioethics: Theoretical Reflections and Practical Applications. Boulder, CO: Westview Press; 1997.Google Scholar

4. See note 1, Donchin 2012.

5. Wolf SM. Introduction: Gender and feminism in bioethics. In: Wolf 1996 (see note 2):3–44; and note 3, Tong 1997, at 75–98.

6. Though defining “a” feminist approach is problematic given the notorious complexities of the movement, we take “feminist” to mean a minimal commitment to combating oppression and respecting agency. Likewise, though difficult to define, we take “feminist bioethics” to include the insights of various feminisms, such as being politically eclectic, ontologically autokoenomous, epistemologically positional, and ethically relational (see note 3, Tong 1997, at 93), and with an aim of actively opposing harm to women (see note 5, Wolf 1996, at 21).

7. Holmes, HB. Closing the gaps. In: Donchin, A, Purdy, LM, eds. Embodying Bioethics. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield; 1999:4564.Google Scholar

8. Shildrick, M. Leaky Bodies and Boundaries. New York: Routledge; 1997.Google Scholar

9. Arras, JD. Principles and particularity. Indiana Law Journal 1994;69(4):9831014.Google ScholarPubMed

10. Sherwin S. Feminism and bioethics. In: Wolf 1996 (see note 2):47–66, at 52, 57.

11. Mahowald M. On treatment of myopia. In: Wolf 1996 (see note 2):95–115, at 99, 101.

12. Roberts D. Reconstructing the patient. In: Wolf 1996 (see note 2):116–43, at 119.

13. Dresser R. What bioethics can learn from the women’s health movement. In: Wolf 1996 (see note 2):144–59, at 154.

14. Farrell Smith J. Communicative ethics in medicine. In: Wolf 1996 (see note 2):184–215, at 185, 202.

15. Lindemann Nelson H, Lindemann Nelson J. Justice in the allocation of health care resources. In: Wolf 1996 (see note 2):351–370, at 353.

16. For more, see note 3, Tong 1997, at 53.

17. See note 5, Wolf 1996, at 15.

18. For more on deductivism, see Gert, B. The Moral Rules. New York: Harper and Row; 1973.Google Scholar

19. See note 3, Tong 1997, at 59.

20. See note 5, Wolf 1996, at 15.

21. For more on inductivism, see Jonsen, AR, Toumlin, S. The Abuse of Casuistry. Berkeley: University of California Press; 1988.Google Scholar

22. Though Beauchamp and Childress claim that the principles were not intended to be purely deductivist, Wolf argues that the question is exactly how deductivist and inductivist one is. See note 5, Wolf 1996, at 16.

23. See note 5, Wolf 1996, at 15.

24. See note 5, Wolf 1996, at 15.

25. See note 3, Tong 1997, at 95.

26. See note 3, Tong 1997, at 244.

27. Fox, RC, Swazey, JP. Medical morality is not bioethics. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 1984;27(3):336–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

28. Sakamoto, H. Towards a new “global bioethics.” Bioethics 1999;13(3/4):191–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

29. Sherwin, S, ed. The Politics of Women’s Health. Philadelphia: Temple University Press; 1998.Google Scholar

30. See note 10, Sherwin 1996, at 52.

31. Purdy LM. A feminist view of health. In: Wolf 1996 (see note 2):163–83.

32. See note 14, Farrell Smith 1996, at 186, 191.

33. Asch A, Geller G. Feminism, bioethics, and genetics. In: Wolf 1996 (see note 2):318–50, at 327.

34. See note 15, Lindemann Nelson, Lindemann Nelson 1996, at 354.

35. For more, see Toulmin, S. Medical ethics in its American context. In: Callahan, D, Dunstan, GR, eds. Biomedical Ethics. New York Academy of Sciences; 1988Google Scholar; and Jonsen, AR. The birth of bioethics. Hastings Centre Report 1993;23 Suppl 6:S115.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

36. See note 5, Wolf 1996, at 16.

37. See note 3, Tong 1997, at 81, 84.

38. See note 5, Wolf 1996, at 16.

39. See note 5, Wolf 1996, at 16.

40. Tong R. Feminist approaches to bioethics. In: Wolf 1996 (see note 2):67–94, at 74.

41. See note 3, Tong 1997, at 94.

42. Code, L. What Can She Know? Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press; 1991, at 78.Google Scholar

43. See note 10, Sherwin 1996, at 60.

44. See note 11, Mahowald 1996, at 101.

45. See note 12, Roberts 1996, at 116.

46. See note 13, Dresser 1996, at 145.

47. See note 31, Purdy 1996, at 171.

48. See note 14, Farrell Smith 1996, at 189.

49. Merton V. Ethical obstacles to the participation of women in biomedical research. In: Wolf 1996 (see note 2):216–51, at 217, 234.

50. Faden R, Kass N, McGraw D. Women as vessels and vectors. In: Wolf 1996 (see note 2):252–81, at 253.

51. See note 15, Lindemann Nelson, Lindemann Nelson 1996, at 358, 365.

52. Wolf SM. Ethics committees and due process. Maryland Law Review 1991;50:798–858.

53. See note 5, Wolf 1996, at 18.

54. See note 5, Wolf 1996, at 19.

55. See note 5, Wolf 1996, at 19.

56. See note 3, Tong 1997, at 90.

57. See Rich, AC. Of Woman Born. London: Virago; 1977.Google Scholar

58. See note 3, Tong 1997, at 92.

59. See note 5, Wolf 1996, at 6.

60. For more, see, e.g., Gilligan, C. In a Different Voice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1982Google Scholar; and Noddings, N. Caring. Berkeley, London: University of California Press; 1984.Google Scholar

61. For more, see Dodds, S. Choice and control in feminist bioethics. In: Mackenzie, C, Stoljar, N, eds. Relational Autonomy. New York: Oxford University Press; 2000:213–35.Google Scholar

62. For more, see Mackenzie, C, Stoljar, N, eds. Relational Autonomy. New York: Oxford University Press; 2000.Google Scholar

63. For more, see, e.g., note 10, Sherwin 1996; McLeod C, Sherwin S. Relational autonomy, self-trust, and health care for patients who are oppressed. In: Mackenzie, Stoljar 2000 (see note 62):259–79; note 11, Mahowald 1996; and note 61, Dodds 2000.

64. For more, see note 3, Tong 1997, at 94–5; and note 62, Mackenzie, Stoljar 2000, at 4.

65. Gotlib, A. Intergenerational justice and health care. International Journal of Feminist Approaches to Bioethics [hereafter IJFAB] 2014;7(1):142–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

66. Victor, E, Guidry-Grimes, L. The persistence of agency through social institutions and caring for future generations. IJFAB 2014;7(1):122–41.Google Scholar

67. Scheman, N. Empowering canaries. IJFAB 2014;7(1):169–91.Google Scholar

68. Wardlaw, MP. The right-to-die exception. IJFAB 2010;3(2):4362.Google Scholar

69. Rogers, W, Mackenzie, C, Dodds, S. Why bioethics needs a concept of vulnerability. IJFAB 2012;5(2):1138.Google Scholar

70. Bluhm, R. Gender differences in depression. IJFAB 2011;4(1):6988.Google Scholar

71. Landeweer, E, Abma, TA, Dauwerse, L, Widdershoven, GAM. Triad collaboration in psychiatry. IJFAB 2011;4(1):121–39.Google Scholar

72. See note 69, Rogers et al. 2012.

73. Shah, K, Batzer, F. Infertility in the developing world. IJFAB 2010;3(2):109–25.Google Scholar

74. Wild, V. How are pregnant women vulnerable research participants? IJFAB 2012;5(2):82104.Google Scholar

75. Bergum, V. Relational ethics in nursing. In: Storch, JL, Rodney, P, Starzomski, R, eds. Toward a Moral Horizon. Toronto, ON: Pearson; 2004:485503.Google Scholar

76. Ells, C, Hunt, MR, Chambers-Evans, J. Relational autonomy as an essential component of patient-centered care. IJFAB 2011;4(2):79101.Google Scholar

77. For more, see note 60, Noddings 1984.

78. For more, see UK Department of Health. Transforming Care: A National Response to Winterbourne View Hospital. Department of Health Review: Final Report; 2012 Dec (cited 2014 July 4); available at https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/213215/final-report.pdf (last accessed 13 Aug 2014 ).

79. See note 3, Tong 1997, at 96.

80. Luna, F, Wolf, AB. Challenges for assisted reproduction and secondary infertility in Latin America. IJFAB 2014;7(1):327.Google Scholar

81. Rodrigues, S. Awoman’s “right to know”? IJFAB 2014;7(1):5173.Google Scholar

82. Van de Wiel, L. The time of the change. IJFAB 2014;7(1):7498.Google Scholar

83. Harbin, A. Disorientation and the medicalization of struggle. IJFAB 2014;7(1):99121.Google Scholar

84. See note 66, Victor, Guidry-Grimes 2012.

85. Cosgrove, L. The DSM, big pharma, and clinical practice guidelines. IJFAB 2011;4(1):1125.Google Scholar

86. Dickenson, D. Body Shopping. Oxford: Oneworld; 2008.Google Scholar

87. Tong, R. Towards a feminist global bioethics: Addressing women’s health concerns worldwide. Health Care Analysis 2001;9:229–46.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

88. Coleman, CH, Bouësseau, MC, Reis, A. The contribution of ethics to public health. Bulletin of the WHO 2008;86(8): 578–79.Google ScholarPubMed

89. See note 88, Coleman et al. 2008.

90. Kass, NE. Public health ethics. Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 2004;32:232–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

91. For more, see Widdows, H. Rejecting the choice paradigm. In: Phillips, A, Madhok, S, Wilson, K, eds. Gender, Agency and Coercion. London: Palgrave; 2013:157–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

92. Laurie, G. Genetic Privacy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2002, at 195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

93. For more, see note 91, Widdows 2013.

94. See note 91, Widdows 2013.

95. See note 91, Widdows 2013.

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.

Total number of HTML views: 49
Total number of PDF views: 364 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 28th January 2021. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Hostname: page-component-898fc554b-mscqj Total loading time: 0.4 Render date: 2021-01-28T06:47:12.352Z Query parameters: { "hasAccess": "0", "openAccess": "0", "isLogged": "0", "lang": "en" } Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false }

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Philosophical Feminist Bioethics
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Philosophical Feminist Bioethics
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Philosophical Feminist Bioethics
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *