Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T20:16:29.517Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Bibliography

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 March 2021

Catriona A. W. McMillan
Catriona A. W. McMillan
Affiliation:
University of Edinburgh
Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
The Human Embryo In Vitro
Breaking the Legal Stalemate
 , pp. 208 - 217
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alghrani, A., ‘The Legal and Ethical Ramifications of Ectogenesis’ (2007), Asian Journal of WTO & International Health Law and Policy, 2(1), 189–212.Google Scholar
Alghrani, A. and Brazier, M., ‘What is it? Whose it? Re-positioning the Fetus in the Context of Research?’ (2011), The Cambridge Law Journal, 70(1), 51–82.Google Scholar
Alghrani, A., Regulating Assisted Reproductive Technologies: New Horizons (Cambridge University Press, 2019).Google Scholar
Alighieri, D., The Divine Comedy (Vintage Books, 2013).Google Scholar
Appleby, J. B. and Brendenoord, A. L., ‘Should the 14‐Day Rule for Embryo Research Become the 28‐Day Rule?’ (2018), EMBO Molecular Medicine, 10(9), e9437. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6127884/CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Atkinson, P., ‘Book Review: Gothic Imaginations’ (2005), Social Studies of Science, 35(4), 653–664.Google Scholar
Baldwin, R. and others, Understanding Regulation: Theory, Strategy, and Practice, 2nd ed. (Oxford University Press, 2012).Google Scholar
Bateson, G., Naven (Stanford University Press, 1958).Google Scholar
Baxter, A., ‘Edmund B. Wilson as a Preformationist: Some Reasons for His Acceptance of the Chromosome Theory’ (1976), Journal of the History of Biology, 9(1), 29–57.Google Scholar
Baylis, F. and Krahn, T., ‘The Trouble with Embryos’ (2009), Science and Technology Studies, 22(2), 31–54.Google Scholar
Becker, G., The Elusive Embryo: How Women and Men Approach New Reproductive Technologies (University of California Press, 2000).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beyleveld, D., Human Dignity in Bioethics and Biolaw (Oxford University Press, 2001).Google Scholar
Bibbings, L., ‘Legal Commentary- R v Bourne: A Historical Context’ in Smith, Stephen and others (eds.), Ethical Judgments: Re-Writing Medical Law (Bloomsbury, 2017).Google Scholar
Blackstone, W., Blackstone’s Commentaries, 4th ed. (Clarendon Press, 1770).Google Scholar
Blackstone, W., Commentaries on the Laws of England (Chicago University Press, 1765).Google Scholar
Botting, F., Gothic (Routledge, 1996).Google Scholar
Botting, F., Limits of Horror: Technology, Bodies, Gothic (Oxford University Press, 2010).Google Scholar
Brownsword, R., ‘Stem Cells and Cloning: Where the Regulatory Consensus Fails’ (2004), New England Law Review, 39(3), 535–571.Google Scholar
Burns, J., The Anatomy of the Gravid Uterus (Glasgow University Press, 1799).Google Scholar
Callus, T., ‘Omnis definitio periculosa est: On the Definition of the Term “Embryo” in the Human Fertilisation & Embryology Act 1990’ (2003), Medical Law International, 6(1), 1–11.Google Scholar
Cavaliere, G., ‘A 14-Day Limit for Bioethics: The Debate Over Human Embryo Research’ (2017), BMC Medical Ethics, 18(1), 38.Google Scholar
Chan, S., ‘How to Rethink the Fourteen‐Day Rule’ (2017), Hastings Center Report, 47(3), 5–6.Google Scholar
Chesney, E., ‘Concept of Mens Rea in the Criminal Law’ (1939), Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 29(5), 627–644.Google Scholar
Coke, E., Institutions of the Laws of England Vol. III (Printed by M. Flesher, for W. Lee, and D. Pakeman, 1622).Google Scholar
Cole, G. and Frankowski, S., Abortion and Protection of the Human Fetus: Legal Problems in a Cross-cultural Perspective (Martinus Nijhoff, 1987).Google Scholar
Connor, S., ‘Inside the Black Box of Human Development’, The Guardian (5 June 2016). www.theguardian.com/science/2016/jun/05/human-development-ivf-embryos-14-day-legal-limit-extend-inside-black-box.Google Scholar
Creed, B., The Monstrous-Feminine: Film, Feminism, Psychoanalysis (Psychology Press, 1993).Google Scholar
Deglincerti, A. and others, ‘Self-Organization of the Attached Human Embryo’ (2016), Nature, 533(7602), 251–254.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Denman, T., An Introduction to the Practice of Midwifery, vol. I (J Johnson, 1794).Google Scholar
Department of Health, ‘Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008’ (Department of Health, 26 July 2010), www.webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Legislation/Actsandbills/DH_080211.Google Scholar
Department of Health, ‘Review of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act’ (White Paper, Cm6989, 2006). https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/272391/6989.pdf.Google Scholar
Devaney, S., Stem Cell Research and the Collaborative Regulation of Innovation (Routledge, 2013).Google Scholar
Devlin, H., ‘Artificial Womb for Premature Babies Successful in Animal Trials’, The Guardian (25 April 2017), www.theguardian.com/science/2017/apr/25/artificial-womb-for-premature-babies-successful-in-animal-trials-biobag.Google Scholar
Diatkine, G, ‘Le Séminaire, X: L’angoisse de Jacques Lacan’ (2005), Revue française de psychanalyse, 69(3), 917–931.Google Scholar
Dickens, B., Abortion and the Law (MacGibbon and Kee, 1996).Google Scholar
Dickenson, D., Property in the Body: Feminist Perspectives, 2nd ed. (Cambridge University Press, 2017).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eriksson, I. and Webster, A., ‘Governance-by-Standards in the Field of Stem Cells: Managing Uncertainty in the World of “Basic Innovation”’ (2008), Science and Culture, 27(2), 99–111.Google Scholar
Ford, M., ‘Nothing and Not Nothing: Law’s Ambivalent Response to Transformation and Transgression at the Beginning of Life’ in Smith, S. and Deazley, R. (eds.), The Legal, Medical and Cultural Regulation of the Body: Transformation and Transgression (Routledge, 2009).Google Scholar
Fox, M., ‘Pre-persons, Commodities or Cyborgs: The Legal Construction and Representation of the Embryo’ (2000), Health Care Analysis, 8(2), 171–188.Google Scholar
Fox, M., ‘The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008: Tinkering at the Margins’ (2009), Feminist Legal Studies, 17(3), 333–344.Google Scholar
Fox, M. and Murphy, T., ‘Can Law Facilitate Embryonic Hopes?’ (2010), Social and Legal Studies, 19(4), 498–505.Google Scholar
Fox, M. and Murphy, T., ‘Response to Sarah Franklin’ (2010), Social and Legal Studies, 19(4), 510–513.Google Scholar
Franklin, S., ‘Making Representations: The Parliamentary Debate on the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act’ in Edwards, J. and others (eds.), Technologies of Procreation: Kinship in the Age of Assisted Conception, 2nd ed. (Routledge, 1999).Google Scholar
Franklin, S., ‘Postmodern Procreation: A Cultural Account of Assisted Reproduction’ in Ginsburg, F. and Rapp, R. (eds.), Conceiving the New World Order: The Global Politics of Reproduction (University of California Press, 1995).Google Scholar
Franklin, S. , ‘Response to Marie Fox and Therese Murphy’ (2010), Social Legal Studies, 19(4), 505–510.Google Scholar
Freeman, J. S, ‘Arguing Along the Slippery Slope of Human Embryo Research’ (1996), Journal of Medical Philosophy, 21(1), 61–81.Google Scholar
Freud, S., The Uncanny (Penguin, 2003).Google Scholar
Gamble, D., ‘Potentialism and the Value of an Embryo’ (2005), Public Affairs Quarterly, 19(4), 271.Google Scholar
Gieryn, T. F., Cultural Boundaries of Science (University of Chicago Press, 1999).Google Scholar
Gilbert, S., Developmental Biology, 6th ed. (Sinauer Associates, 2000).Google Scholar
Ginsburg, F. D. and Reiter, R. (eds.), Conceiving the New World Order: The Global Politics of Reproduction (University of California Press, 1995).Google Scholar
Glas, H. C. and others, ‘Outcomes for Extremely Premature Infants’ (2015), Anesthesia and Analgesia, 120(6), 1337–1351.Google Scholar
Gogarty, B., ‘What Exactly is an Exact Copy? And Why It Matters When Trying to Ban Human Reproductive Cloning in Australia’ (2003), Journal of Medical Ethics, 29(2), 84–89.Google Scholar
Grubb, A., ‘Abortion Law in England: The Medicalization of a Crime’ (1990), Journal of Law and Medical Ethics, 18(1–2), 146–161.Google Scholar
Haimes, E., and others, ‘“So, What Is an Embryo?” A Comparative Study of the Views of Those Asked to Donate Embryos for hESC Research in the UK and Switzerland’ (2008), New Genetics and Society, 27(2), 113–126.Google Scholar
Hammond-Browning, N., ‘Ethics, Embryos and Evidence: A Look Back at Warnock’ (2015), Medical Law Review, 23(4), 588–619.Google Scholar
Hanafi, Z., The Monster in the Machine: Magic, Medicine, and the Marvelous in the Time of the Scientific Revolution (Duke University Press, 2000).Google Scholar
Hansen, G., The Trickster and the Paranormal (Xlibris, 2001).Google Scholar
Haraway, D., ‘Manifesto for Cyborgs: Science, Technology, and Socialist Feminism in the 1980s’ reprinted in Nicolson, L. (ed.), Feminism/Postmodernism (Routledge, 1985).Google Scholar
Harris, J., ‘“Goodbye Dolly?” The Ethics of Human Cloning’ (1997), Journal of Medical Ethics, 23(6), 353–360.Google Scholar
Harrison, E. and Midori, I., ‘Women’s Responses to Child Loss in Japan: The Case of “Mizuko Kuyō”[with Response]’ (1995), Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion, 11(2), 67–100.Google Scholar
Hartouni, V., Cultural Conceptions: On Reproductive Technologies and the Remaking of Life (University of Minnesota Press, 1997).Google Scholar
Hayashi, K. and others, ‘Offspring from Oocytes Derived from in Vitro Primordial Germ Cell-like Cells in Mice’ (2012), Science, 338(6109), 971–975.Google Scholar
Heilbron, J., The Oxford Companion to the History of Modern Science (Oxford University Press, 2003).Google Scholar
Hellsten, L., ‘Dolly: Scientific Breakthrough or Frankenstein’s Monster? Journalistic and Scientific Metaphors of Cloning’ (2000), Metaphor and Symbol, 15(4), 213–221.Google Scholar
Helyer, R., ‘Parodied to Death: The Postmodern Gothic of American Psycho’ (2000), Modern Fiction Studies, 46(3),725–746.Google Scholar
Hennette-Vauchez, S., ‘Words Count-How Interest in Stem Cells Has Made the Embryo Available: A Look at the French Law of Bioethics’ (2009), Medical Law Review, 17(1), 52–75.Google Scholar
Herring, J., Medical Law and Ethics (Oxford University Press, 2016).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hilhorst, M. and others, ‘Nudge Me, Help My Baby: On Other-Regarding Nudges’ (2007), Journal of Medical Ethics, 43(10), 702–706.Google Scholar
Hinds, E., ‘The Devil Sings the Blues: Heavy Metal, Gothic Fiction and “Postmodern” Discourse’ (1992), The Journal of Popular Culture, 26(3), 151–164.Google Scholar
House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, ‘Human Reproductive Technologies and the Law: Report of the Fifth Session 2004–5’ (2005). https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmselect/cmsctech/7/7i.pdf.Google Scholar
Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, ‘How We Regulate’ (HFEA), www.hfea.gov.uk/about-us/how-we-regulate.Google Scholar
Hurley, K., Gothic Body (Cambridge University Press, 1996).Google Scholar
Hyun, I. and Jung, K., ‘Human Research Cloning, Embryos and Embryo-like Artefacts’ (2006), Hastings Centre Reports, 36(5), 34–41.Google Scholar
Hyun, I. and others, ‘Embryology Policy: Revisit the 14 Day Rule’ (2016), Nature, 533(7602), 169–171.Google Scholar
Imamura, M. and others, ‘Induction of Primordial Germ Cells from Mouse Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells Derived from Adult Hepatocytes’ (2010), Molecular Reproduction and Development, 77(9), 802–8011.Google Scholar
Ingram-Waters, M., Unnatural Babies: Cultural Conceptions of Deviant Procreations (ProQuest, 2008).Google Scholar
Istvan, Z., ‘Artificial Wombs are Coming and the Controversy is Already Here’, (Motherboard, 4 August 2014), www.motherboard.vice.com/read/artificial-wombs-are-coming-and-the-controversys-already-here.Google Scholar
Jackson, E., ‘The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill’ (2008), Expert Review of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 3(4), 429–431.Google Scholar
Jackson, E., Regulating Reproduction (Hart, 2001).Google Scholar
Jacob, M. A. and Prainsack, B., ‘Embryonic Hopes: Controversy, Alliance, and Reproductive Entities in Law and the Social Sciences’ (2010), Social and Legal Studies, 19(4), 497–517.Google Scholar
Jacob, M.A. and Prainsack, B., ‘Unfreezing Embryos?’ (2010), Social and Legal Studies, 19(4), 513–517.Google Scholar
Jaworska, A. and Tannenbaum, J., ‘The Grounds of Moral Status’, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (10 January 2018), https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/grounds-moral-status/.Google Scholar
Jentcsh, E., ‘On Psychology of the Uncanny’ (1906), Angelaki: Journal of the Theoretical Humanities, 2(1), 7–16.Google Scholar
Jha, A., ‘Winston: IVF Clinics Corrupt and Greedy’, The Guardian (21 May 2007). www.theguardian.com/science/2007/may/31/medicineandhealth.health.Google Scholar
Johanson, R. and others, ‘Has the Medicalisation of Childbirth Gone Too Far?’ (2002), British Medical Journal, 324(7432), 892–895.Google Scholar
Johnson, M., ‘Escaping the Tyranny of the Embryo? A New Approach to ART Regulation Based on UK and Australian Experiences’ (2006), Human Reproduction, 21(11), 2756–2765.Google Scholar
Jonlin, E., ‘The Voices of the Embryo Donors’ (2015), Trends in Molecular Medicine, 21(2), 55–58.Google Scholar
Karpin, I., ‘The Legal and Relational Identity of the “Not-Yet” Generation’ (2010), Law, Innovation and Technology, 4(2), 122–143.Google Scholar
Karpin, I., ‘The Uncanny Embryos: Legal Limits to the Human and Reproduction Without Women’ (2006), Sydney Law Review, 28(24), 599–623.Google Scholar
Karpowicz, P., Cohen, C. B., and Van der Kooy, D., ‘Developing Human-Nonhuman Chimeras in Human Stem Cell Research: Ethical Issues and Boundaries’ (2005), Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, 15(2), 107–134.Google Scholar
Keown, J., Abortion, Doctors and the Law: Some Aspects of the Legal Regulation of Abortion in England from 1803 to 1982 (Cambridge University Press, 2002).Google Scholar
Kittler, F. A., Literature, Media, Information Systems (Routledge, 2013).Google Scholar
Langford, S., ‘An End to Abortion? A Feminist Critique of the “Ectogenetic Solution” to Abortion’ (2008), Women’s Studies International Forum, 31(4), 263–269.Google Scholar
Latour, B., We Have Never Been Modern (Harvard University Press, 1993).Google Scholar
Laurie, G., ‘Liminality and the Limits of Law’ (2017), Medical Law Review, 25(1), 47–72.Google Scholar
Law, J., ‘The Materials of STS’ in Hicks, D. and Beaudry, M. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Material Culture Studies (Oxford University Press, 2010).Google Scholar
Macklin, R., ‘Splitting Embryos on the Slippery Slope: Ethics and Public Policy’ (1994), Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, 4(3), 209–225.Google Scholar
Madden, D., Medicine, Ethics and the Law in Ireland, 2nd ed. (Bloomsbury Professional, 2011).Google Scholar
Maienschein, J., ‘Epigenesis and Preformationism’ (The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, first published 11 October 2015), www.plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2017/entries/epigenesis/.Google Scholar
Mason, J. K., ‘Discord and Disposal of Embryos’ (2004), Edinburgh Law Review, 8(1), 84–93.Google Scholar
McCandless, J. and Sheldon, S., ‘Genetically Challenged: The Determination of Legal Parenthood in Assisted Reproduction’ in Graham, S. and others (eds.), Relatedness in Assisted Reproduction: Families, Origins and Identities (Cambridge University Press, 2014), 61–78.Google Scholar
McGuinness, S., ‘Judgment 1- R v Bourne [1939] 1 KB 687’ in Smith, S. and others (eds.), Ethical Judgments: Re-Writing Medical Law (Bloomsbury, 2017).Google Scholar
McGuinness, S. and Thompson, M., ‘Medicine and Abortion Law: Complicating the Reforming Profession’ (2015), Medical Law Review, 23(2), 177–199.Google Scholar
McKie, R., ‘Row over Allowing Research on 28–Day Embryos’ (Guardian Online, 4 December 2016). www.theguardian.com/society/2016/dec/04/row-over-allowing-research-on-28-day-embryos.Google Scholar
McLean, S., ‘The Moral and Legal Boundaries of Fetal Intervention: Whose Right/Whose Duty’ (1998), Seminars in Neonatology, 3(4), 249–254.Google Scholar
McMillan, C. and others, ‘Beyond Categorisation: Refining the Relationship Between Subjects and Objects in Health Research Regulation’ (2021), Law, Innovation and Technology, 13(1) (forthcoming).Google Scholar
Meikle, J., ‘Axe IVF Watchdog, Says Fertility Expert’, The Guardian (11 December 2014). www.theguardian.com/society/2004/dec/11/health.medicineandhealth.Google Scholar
Monahan, P., ‘Human Embryo Research Confronts Ethical “Rule”’ (2016), Science, 352(6286), 640.Google Scholar
Mulkay, M., The Embryo Research Debate: Science and the Politics of Reproduction (Cambridge University Press, 1997).Google Scholar
Mulkay, M., ‘Frankenstein and the Debate over Embryo Research’ (1996), Science, Technology and Human Values, 21(2), 157–176.Google Scholar
Nayernia, K. and others, ‘In Vitro-Differentiated Embryonic Stem Cells Give Rise to Male Gametes that can Generate Offspring Mice’ (2006), Development Cell, 11(1), 125–132.Google Scholar
Needham, J., A History of Embryology, 2nd ed. (Cambridge University Press, 2015).Google Scholar
Newson, A.J. and Smajdor, A.C., ‘Artificial Gametes: New Paths to Parenthood?’ (2005), Journal of Medical Ethics, 31(3), 184–186.Google Scholar
Novaes, S. B. and Salem, T., ‘Embedding the Embryo’ in Harris, J. and Holm, S. (eds.), The Future of Human Reproduction (Clarendon Press, 1998).Google Scholar
Nuffield Council on Bioethics, ‘Council to Consider “14 Day Rule” in Embryo Research’, (Nuffield Council on Bioethics, 5 May 2016), www.nuffieldbioethics.org/news/2016/council-14-day-rule-embryo-research/.Google Scholar
Palacios-González, C., ‘Human Dignity and the Creation of Human-Nonhuman Chimeras’ (2015), Medicine, Health Care, and Philosophy, 18(4), 487.Google Scholar
Palacios-González, C., Harris, J., and Testa, G., ‘Multiplex Parenting: IVG and the Generations to Come’ (2014), Journal of Medical Ethics, 40(11), 752–758.Google Scholar
Park, I. H. and others, ‘Reprogramming of Human Somatic Cells to Pluripotency with Defined Factors’ (2008), Nature, 451(7175), 141–146.Google Scholar
Parpart, J., ‘Who is the “Other”?: A Postmodern Feminist Critique of Women and Development Theory and Practice’ (1993), Development and Change, 24(3), 439–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parry, S., ‘(Re) Constructing Embryos in Stem Cell Research: Exploring the Meaning of Embryos for People Involved in Fertility Treatments’ (2006), Social Science and Medicine, 62(10), 2358.Google Scholar
Partridge, E. A. and others, ‘An Extra-Uterine System to Physiologically Support the Extreme Premature Lamb’ (2017), Nature Communications, 8, 15112.Google Scholar
Pera, M., ‘Human Embryo Research and the 14-Day Rule’ (2017), Development, 144(11), 1923–1925.Google Scholar
Punter, D., Gothic Pathologies: The Text, the Body and the Law (Springer, 1998).Google Scholar
Quigley, M. and Ayihongbe, S., ‘Everyday Cyborgs: On Integrated Persons and Integrated Goods’ (2018), Medical Law Review, 26(2), 276–308.Google Scholar
Rabinow, P., Anthropos Today: Reflections on Modern Equipment (Princeton University Press, 2003).Google Scholar
Rabinow, P., French DNA: Trouble in Purgatory (University of Chicago Press, 1999).Google Scholar
Räsänen, J., ‘Ectogenesis, Abortion, and a Right to the Death of the Foetus’ (2017), Bioethics, 31(9), 607–702.Google Scholar
Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Cmnd 9314, 1984).Google Scholar
Romanis, E. C., ‘Artificial Womb Technology and the Frontiers of Human Reproduction: Conceptual Differences and Potential Implications’ (2018), Journal of Medical Ethics, 44(11), 751–755.Google Scholar
Romanis, E. C., ‘Challenging the “Born Alive” Threshold: Fetal Surgery, Artificial Wombs, and the English Approach to Legal Personhood’ (2020), Medical Law Review, 28(1), 93–123.Google Scholar
Rothman, B., ‘Pregnancy, Birth and Risk: An Introduction’ (2014), Health, Risk and Society, 16(1), 1–6.Google Scholar
Sage, V. and Smith, A. L. (eds.), Modern Gothic (Manchester University Press, 1996).Google Scholar
Sample, I., ‘Clone Research Hampered by Red Tape Says Fertility Expert’, The Guardian (2 March 2007). www.theguardian.com/politics/2007/mar/02/genetics.immigrationpolicy.Google Scholar
Saunders, P. and Watts, G., ‘Should MPs Sanction Three-Parent Babies?’, The Guardian (12 June 2012). www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/jun/12/head-to-head-three-parent-babies.Google Scholar
Schroeder, M., ‘Value Theory’ (The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Fall 2016 Edition), Edward Zalta (ed.) https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2016/entries/value-theory/ accessed 20 January 2018.Google Scholar
Scully, J. L., Disability Bioethics: Moral Bodies, Moral Difference (Rowman & Littlefield, 2008).Google Scholar
Scottish Law Commission, ‘Liability for Antenatal Injury: Report on a Reference under Section 3(1)(e) of the Law Commissions Act 1965’ (Scot Law Com No. 30) Cmd 5371. www.scotlawcom.gov.uk/files/5112/7989/6877/rep30.pdf.Google Scholar
Segers, S. and others, ‘In Vitro Gametogenesis and Reproductive Cloning: Can we Allow One while Banning the Other?’ (2019), Bioethics, 33(1), 68–75.Google Scholar
Seymour, J., Childbirth and the Law (Oxford University Press, 2000).Google Scholar
Shahbazi, M. and others, ‘Self-Organization of the Human Embryo in the Absence of Maternal Tissues’ (2016), Nature Cell Biology, 18(6), 700–708.Google Scholar
Sheldon, S., ‘“Who is the Mother to Make the Judgment?”: The Constructions of Woman in English Abortion law’ (1993), Feminist Legal Studies, 1(1), 3–22.Google Scholar
Sheldon, S., Beyond Control: Medical Power and Abortion Control (Pluto, 1997).Google Scholar
Sheldon, S. and Wellings, K. (eds.), Decriminalising Abortion in the UK: What Would It Mean? (Policy Press, 2020).Google Scholar
Shelley, M., Frankenstein (Penguin Classics, 2003).Google Scholar
Shildrick, M., Leaky Bodies and Boundaries: Feminism, Postmodernism and (Bio)Ethics (Routledge, 2015).Google Scholar
Simkulet, W., ‘Abortion and Ectogenesis: Moral Compromise’ (2020), Journal of Medical Ethics, 46(2), 93–98.Google Scholar
Solter, D. and others, Embryo Research in Pluralistic Europe, vol. XXI (Springer Science & Business Media, 2003).Google Scholar
Squier, S., Liminal Lives: Imagining the Human at the Frontiers of Biomedicine (Duke University Press, 2004).Google Scholar
Stanley, T., ‘Three Parent Babies: Unethical, Scary and Wrong’, Telegraph (03 February 2015), www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/11380784/Three-parent-babies-unethical-scary-and-wrong.htmlGoogle Scholar
Stanton, C. and Harris, J., ‘The Moral Status of the Embryo Post-Dolly’ (2005), Journal of Medical Ethics, 31(4), 221–225.Google Scholar
Star, S. L. and Griesemer, J., ‘Institutional Ecology, Translations and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology 1907–39’ (1989), Social, 19(3), 387–420.Google Scholar
Star, S. L., ‘This is not a Boundary Object: Reflections on the Origin of a Concept’ (2010), Science, Technology, and Human Values, 35(5), 601–617.Google Scholar
Stenner, P., ‘Liminality: Un-Wohl-Gefühle und der affective turn’ Transcript Verlag (2016), 45–68.Google Scholar
Storrow, R., ‘Quests for Conception: Fertility Tourists, Globalization and Feminist Legal Theory’ (2005), Hastings Law Journal, 57(2), 295–330.Google Scholar
Strathern, M., Kinship, Law and the Unexpected (Cambridge University Press, 2010).Google Scholar
Suter, S. M., ‘In Vitro Gametogenesis: Just Another Way to Have a Baby?’ (2016), Journal of Law and the Biosciences, 3(1), 87–119.Google Scholar
Svendsen, M. and Koch, L., ‘Unpacking the “Spare Embryo”: Facilitating Stem Cell Research in a Moral Landscape’ (2008), Social Studies of Science, 38(1), 93–110.Google Scholar
Szakolczai, Á. , ‘Liminality and Experience: Structuring Transitory Situations and Transformative Events’ (2009), International Political Anthropology, 2(1), 141–172.Google Scholar
Szakolczai, Á. , ‘Permanent (Trickster) Liminality: The Reasons of the Heart and of the Mind’ (2017), Theory and Psychology, 27(2), 231–248.Google Scholar
Taylor-Alexander, S. and others, ‘Confronting the Liminal Spaces of Health Research Regulation: Beyond Regulatory Compression’ (2016), Law, Innovation and Technology, 8(2), 149–176.Google Scholar
Tesarik, J. and Greco, E., ‘A Zygote is not an Embryo: Ethical and Legal Considerations’ (2004), Reproductive Biomedicine Online, 9(1), 13–16.Google Scholar
Testa, G. and Harris, J., ‘Ethics and Synthetic Gametes’ (2005), Bioethics, 19(2), 146–66.Google Scholar
Testa, G. and Harris, J., ‘Ethical Aspects of ES Cell-Derived Gametes’ (2004), Science, 305(5691), 1719.Google Scholar
Thomas, Y., ‘Fictio Legis: L’empire de la fiction Romaine et ses limites Medievales’ (1995), Droits, 21, 18.Google Scholar
Thomassen, B., Liminality and the Modern: Living Through the In-between (Ashgate, 2014).Google Scholar
Thompson, J. J., ‘A Defense of Abortion’ (1971), Philosophy and Public Affairs, 1(1), 47–66.Google Scholar
Thorne, S. (tr), Bracton on the Laws and Customs of England, vol. II (Belknap, 1968).Google Scholar
Toumey, C., ‘The Moral Character of Mad Scientists: A Cultural Critique of Science’ (1992), Science, Technology and Human Values, 17(4), 411–437.Google Scholar
Tudor, A., Monsters and Mad Scientists: A Cultural History of the Horror Movie (Wiley-Blackwell, 1991).Google Scholar
Turner, V., ‘Frame, Flow and Reflection: Ritual and Drama as Public Liminality’ in Benamou, M. and Caramello, C. (eds.), Performance in Postmodern Culture (Coda Press, 1977).Google Scholar
Turner, V., The Forest of Symbols: Aspects of Ndembu Ritual (Cornell University Press, 1967).Google Scholar
Turner, V., The Ritual Process: Structure and Anti-Structure (Aldine Transaction, 1969).Google Scholar
van Gennep, A., The Rites of Passage (University of Chicago Press, 1960).Google Scholar
Vibert, F., The New Regulatory Space: Reframing Democratic Governance (Edward Elgar, 2014).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waldby, C. and Squier, S., ‘Ontogeny, Ontology, and Phylogeny: Embryonic Life and Stem Cell Technologies’ (2003), Configurations, 11(1), 27–46.Google Scholar
Warnock, M., ‘The Warnock Report and the 14-Day Rule’ (Rethinking the Ethics of Embryo Research: Genome Editing, 13 Days and beyond, London, 7 December 2016).Google Scholar
Warnock, M., A Question of Life: The Warnock Report on Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Blackwell, 1985).Google Scholar
Webster, K., ‘Whose Embryo is it Anyway? A Critique of Evans v Amicus Healthcare [2003] EWHC 2161 (Fam)’ (2013), Journal of International Women’s Studies, 7(3), 71–86.Google Scholar
Welin., S., ‘Reproductive Ectogenesis: The Third Era of Human Reproduction and Some Moral Consequences’ (2004), Science and Engineering Ethics, 10(4), 615.Google Scholar
WHO, ‘Preterm Birth’ (World Health Organization, 19 February 2018), www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/preterm-birth.Google Scholar
Willett, J. and Deegan, M., ‘Liminality and Disability: Rites of Passage and Community in Hypermodern Society’ (2001), Disability Studies Quarterly, 21(3), 137–152.Google Scholar
Williams, G., The Sanctity of Life and the Criminal Law (Knopf, 1957).Google Scholar
Winter, G., ‘The Future of Artificial Wombs’ (2017), British Journal of Midwifery, 25(7), 416.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] 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 saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved 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.

  • Bibliography
  • Catriona A. W. McMillan, University of Edinburgh
  • Book: The Human Embryo <I>In Vitro</I>
  • Online publication: 18 March 2021
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108933421.011
Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please 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 account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

  • Bibliography
  • Catriona A. W. McMillan, University of Edinburgh
  • Book: The Human Embryo <I>In Vitro</I>
  • Online publication: 18 March 2021
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108933421.011
Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please 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 account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

  • Bibliography
  • Catriona A. W. McMillan, University of Edinburgh
  • Book: The Human Embryo <I>In Vitro</I>
  • Online publication: 18 March 2021
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108933421.011
Available formats
×