Some authors have advanced a contractual model to protect patient autonomy within the therapeutic relationship. Such a conception of the physician–patient relationship is intended to serve both parties by respecting patients' choices and preserving physician integrity. I critique this contractual view and offer an alternative, feminist contextualized approach to autonomy within the therapeutic relationship. This approach places the physician-patient relationship within a larger social context, and indicates the many social inequalities that render insupportable the notion of physicians and patients as (...) contracting equals. (shrink)

Nonfeminist accounts of post-menopausal IVF reject the practice on four main grounds: I) scarcity of resources; 2) fairness; 3) the “inappropriateness” of post-menopausal motherhood; and 4) concerns for orphaned children. I argue that these grounds are insufficient for denying post-menopausal women IVF access. I then suggest that a feminist evaluation of the practice is more compelling; ultimately, however, we have no strong grounds for a policy denying post-menopausal women access to this technology.

: Nonfeminist accounts of post-menopausal IVF reject the practice on four main grounds: 1) scarcity of resources; 2) fairness; 3) the "inappropriateness" of post-menopausal motherhood; and 4) concerns for orphaned children. I argue that these grounds are insufficient for denying post-menopausal women IVF access. I then suggest that a feminist evaluation of the practice is more compelling; ultimately, however, we have no strong grounds for a policy denying post-menopausal women access to this technology.

If few authors have paid much attention to the feminine concerns in new reproductive technologies, actually it is mainly some feminist authors, who, to a great extent, have allowed these concerns to enter into public debate. On the other hand, the preoccupation about women's interests and points of view is a feature in common of all feminist approaches, independently of their other philosophical concepts. Nevertheless, another feature of feminist discourses is their plurality and heterogeneity. So, we have not find back (...) answers to the questions we have analysed in this paper, because there is not only one answer. This is not an inconvenience but an incentive to continue the democratic debate within the framework of plurality and tolerance. We must incorporate to this debate the, often forgotten, women's own interests, and a critical view of the underlying assumptions and biases. These two points of view are common to the majority of feminist approaches, and should be seriously considered as worthy to be incorporated to our discourses when debating the issues linked to the new reproductive technologies. (shrink)