The fields of medical ethics, bioethics, and women's studies have experienced unprecedented growth in the last forty years. Along with the rapid pace of development in medicine and biology, and changes in social expectations, moral quandaries about the body and social practices involving it have multiplied. Philosophers are uniquely situated to attempt to clarify and resolves these questions. Yet the subdiscipline of bioethics still in large part reflects mainstream scholars' lack of interest in gender as a category of analysis. This (...) volume aims to show how a feminist perspective advances bioethics. The author uncover inconsistencies in traditional arguments and argue for the importance of hitherto ignored factors in decision-making. The essays include theory and very specific examples that demonstrate the glaring inadequacy of mainstream bioethics, where gender bias is still often to be found, along with general lack of attention to women's concerns. (shrink)

How to embed reflexivity in public participation in techno-science and to open it up to the agency of publics are key concerns in current debates. There is a risk that engagements become limited to “laboratory experiments,” highly controlled and foreclosed by participation experts, particularly in upstream techno-sciences. In this paper, we propose a way to open up the “participation laboratory” by engaging localized, self-assembling publics in ways that respect and mobilize their ecologies of participation. Our innovative reflexive methodology introduced participatory (...) methods to public engagement with upstream techno-science, with the public contributing to both the content and format of the project. Reflecting on the project, we draw attention to the largely overlooked issue of temporalities of participation, and the co-production of futures and publics in participation methodologies. We argue that many public participation methodologies are underpinned by the open futures model, which imagines the future as a space of unrestrained creativity. We contrast that model with the lived futures model typical of localized publics, which respects latency of materials and processes but imposes limits on creativity. We argue that to continue being societally relevant and scientifically important, public participation methods should reconcile the open future of research with the lived futures of localized publics. (shrink)

Book reviewed in this article: No Longer Patient: Feminist Ethics & Health Care. By Susan Sherwin Feminist Perspectives in Medical Ethics. Edited by Helen Bequaert Holmes and Laura M. Purdy.

Women most fully experience the consequences of human reproductive technologies. Men who convene to evaluate such technologies discuss "them": the women who must accept, avoid, or even resist these technologies; the women who consume technologies they did not devise; the women who are the objects of policies made by men. So often the input of women is neither sought nor listened to. The privileged insights and perspectives that women bring to the consideration of technologies in human reproduction are the subject (...) of these volumes, which constitute the revised and edited record of a Workshop on "Ethical Issues in Human Reproduction Technology: Analysis by Women" (EIRTAW), held in June, 1979, at Hampshire College in Amherst, Massachusetts. Some 80 members of the workshop, 90 percent of them women (from 24 states), represented diverse occupations and personal histories, different races and classes, varied political commitments. They included doctors, nurses, and scientists, lay midwives, consumer advocates, historians, and sociologists, lawyers, policy analysts, and ethicists. Each session, however, made plain that ethics is an everyday concern for women in general, as well as an academic profession for some. (shrink)

Problems with clinical research that create conflicts between doctors' therapeutic and research obligations may be fueled by a rigid view of science as determiner of truth, a heavy reliance on statistics, and certain features of randomized clinical trials. I suggest some creative, feminist approaches to such research and explore ways to provide choice for patients and to use values in directing both therapy and science - to enhance the effectiveness of each.

Book reviewed in this article: The Custom‐Made Child? Women‐Centered Perspectives. Helen B. Holmes, Betty B. Hoskins, Michael Gross, editors.

Authors in this special Hypatia issue seem called to heal ethics, medicine, and the new field - medical ethics. After explaining why feminists should feel this calling, I group authors' contributions as responses to questions: 1. Why hasn't medical ethics already healed medicine? 2. What role should 'caring' play? 3. Must we first heal science? 4. Are we calling health a virtue? 5. Why haven't the many medical ethics books helped? 6. How do our sisters in sociology support us?

Book reviewed in this article: The Custom‐Made Child? Women‐Centered Perspectives. Helen B. Holmes, Betty B. Hoskins, Michael Gross, editors.

This is a reply to Esther Frances's comment, "Some Thoughts on the Content of Hypatia," in which she makes specific reference to the special issue on "Feminist Ethics and Medicine" which I edited.

Around the world the wealthy can get their lives extended while the poorget little basic medical help. Over the same years that the field ofbioethics has prospered and expanded, this disparity has increased.Reasons for the failure of bioethics to successfully address thishealth/wealth issue include its identification with the cognitiveand social authority of medicine; its gatekeeping behavior;its funding sources; its questionable use of ``principlism'' andits emphasis on crises and dilemmas to the neglect of ``housekeeping''issues. The work of most women in bioethics (...) rarely addresses thehealth/wealth issue; if it does, their work may be ignored, aswere the recommendations of Canadian feminists working under governmentgrants. To achieve equity in health care, the structure of both medicineand bioethics needs to be changed. Yet, since bioethicists generallyhave accepted the status quo, this seems unlikely to happen. (shrink)

Life situations often seem to require dualistic, either or decision making, but this common method does not always clarify moral decisions. To show this, standard arguments on why to choose or not to choose the sex or ones child are presented. Then, our feminist thinking, which regards clusters of values, and which reframes questions rather than choosing between desirable alternatives, suggests another possibility, in a gynandrous world vision.