Bioethicists, like many other academics, have a tendency to try to make things general and simpler by eliminating context. Particulars, such as race, economic class, and gender, often seem to be lost in this ocean of generality and abstraction. But in losing them, we are neglecting the analysis of serious moral problems and, with it, the possibility of offering some kind of solution to such problems. This article argues that particulars do matter very much. We will focus ourattention here on gender. We will argue that ignoring questions of gender when evaluating genetic technologies is seriously problematic because it might lead to further injustices against women. Proceeding with a noncontextual understanding of genetic technologies will likely disregard the unjust ways in which the health care system treats women, as well as the ways in which genetic technologies impose extra burdens on them.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Ash, A., & Geller, G. (1996). Feminism, bioethics, and genetics. In S. Wolf (Ed.), Feminism and bioethics(pp. 318-350). New York: Oxford University Press.
2.
Bennefield, R. L. (1996). Health insurance coverage: 1995. Current population reports, series P 60-195. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
3.
Benson, V., & Marano, M. A. (1994). Current estimates from the national health interview survey, 1993. Vital and Health Statistics, 10, 190, 114-142.
4.
Bertwistle, D., & Ashworth, A. (1999). The pathology of familial breast cancer how do the functions of BRCA1 and BRCA2 relate to breast tumour pathology?Breast Cancer Research, 1(1), 41-47.
5.
Broder, M. S., Kanouse, D. E., Mittman, B. S., and Bernstein, S. J. (2000). The appropriateness of recommendations for hysterectomy. Obstetrics and Gynecology, 95(2), 199-205.
6.
Bureau of the Census. (2000a). Poverty in the United States: 1999. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
7.
Bureau of the Census. (2000b). Statistical abstract of the United States: 1999. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
8.
Bureau of the Census. (2001). Statistical abstract of the United States: 2000. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office
9.
Chang-Claude, J. (2001). Inherited genetic susceptibility to breast cancer. IARC Science Publication, 154, 177-190.
10.
Committee on Labor and Human Resources. (1992). Women’s health: Ensuring quality and equity in biomedical research. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
11.
Corbie-Smith, G., Thomas, S. B., Williams, M. V., & Moody-Ayers, S. (1999). Attitudes and beliefs of African Americans toward participation in medical research. Journal Of General Internal Medicine, 14(9), 537-546.
12.
de Melo-Martín, I. (1998). Making babies: Biomedical Technologies, reproductive ethics, and public policy. Dordrecht, Germany: Kluwer.
13.
Dresser, R. (1992). Wanted: Single, white, male for medical research. The Hastings Center Report, 22, 24-29.
14.
Evans, M. (1992). Reproductive risks and prenatal diagnosis. Norwalk, CT: Appleton & Lange.
15.
Evans, M. I., (Ed). (1993). Reproductive genetic testing: impact upon women. Fetal Diagnosis and Therapy, 8(Suppl 1), 1-246.
16.
Freedman, T. G. (1998). Genetic susceptibility testing. Health and Social Work, 33, 214-222.
17.
Gartner, A., Lipski, D. K., & Turnbull, A. P.. (1991). Supporting families with a child with a disability: An international outlook. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
18.
Habermas, J. (1984). Theory of communicative action(Vol. 1, Thomas McCarthy, Trans.) Boston: Beacon.
19.
Habermas, J. (1987). Theory of communicative action(Vol. 2, Thomas McCarthy, Trans.). Boston: Beacon.
20.
Henifin, M. S., Hubbard, R., & Norsigian, J. (1989). Prenatal screening. In S. Cohen and N. Taub (Eds.), Reproductive laws for the 1990’s. Clifton, NJ: Humana.
21.
Hoedemaekers, R., Have, R. T., & Chadwick, R. (1997). Genetic screening: A comparative analysis of three recent reports. Journal of Medical Ethics. 23(3), 135-141.
22.
Lindemann, N. H., & Lindemann N. J. (1996). Justice in the allocation of health care resources: A feminist account. In Susan Wolf (Ed.), Feminism and bioethics(351-370). New York: Oxford University Press.
23.
Longino, H. (1992). Science as social knowledge. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
24.
Longino, H. (1995). Knowledge, bodies, and values. Reproductive technologies and their scientific context. In A. Feenberg & A. Hannay (Eds.), Technology and the politics of knowledge(pp. 195-210). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
25.
McMurray, R. J. (1991). Gender disparities in clinical decision making. JAMA, 266(4), 559-562.
26.
Milunsky, A., & Annas, G. (Eds.). (1985). Genetics and the law. New York: Plenum.
27.
Pence, G. (1995). Classic cases in medical ethics. New York: McGraw-Hill.
28.
Roberts, D. (1996). Reconstructing the patient: Starting with women of color. In S. Wolf (Ed.), Feminism and bioethics(pp. 116-143). New York: Oxford University Press.
29.
Seymour, J. (1994). A pregnant woman’s decision to decline treatment: How should the law respond. Journal of Law and Medicine, 2, 27-37.
30.
Schaubel, D. E., Stewart, D. E., Morrison, H. I., Zimmerman, D. L., Cameron, J. I., Jeffery, J. J., & Fenton, S. S. (2000). Sex inequality in kidney transplantation rates. Archives of Internal Medicine, 160(15), 2349-2354.
31.
Shavers, V. L., Lynch, C. F., & Burmeister, L. F. (2001). Factors that influence African Americans’ willingness to participate in medical research studies. Cancer, 1(91§1), 233-236.
32.
Sherwin, S. (1992). No longer patient. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
33.
Statistics Division of the United Nations Secretariat and International Labour Office. (2000). Indicators on income and economic activity. United Nations Statistical Division. Retrieved June 7, 2000, from http://www.un.org/Depts/unsd/social/inc-eco.htm
34.
Tong, R. (1997). Feminist approaches to bioethics. Boulder, CO: Westview.
35.
UNESCO. (2000). Indicators on literacy. United Nations Statistical Division. Retrieved June 7, 2000, from http://www.un.org/Depts/unsd/social/literacy.htm
36.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (1996). Health, United States, 1995. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
37.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (1999). Health, United States, 1998. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
38.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2000). Health, United States, 1999. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
39.
Welcsh, P. L., & King, M. C. (2001). BRCA1 and BRCA2 and the genetics of breast and ovarian cancer. Human Molecular Genetics, 10(7), 705-713.
