Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T07:48:44.305Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

On the Use of IVF by Post-menopausal Women

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 March 2020

Abstract

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.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © 1999 by Hypatia, Inc.

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

Arber, Sara, and Ginn, Jay. 1991. Gender and later life. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Basen, Gwynne. 1994. How Old MacDonald lost the farm and doctors got to “make” babies: A personal reflection on the reproductive industry. In Misconceptions: The social construction of choice and the new reproductive and genetic technologies, ed. Basen, GwynneEichler, Margrit, and Lippman, Abby. Prescott: Voyageur Publishing.Google Scholar
Belkin, Lisa. 1997. Pregnant with complications. The New York Times Magazine. 26 October, Section 6.Google ScholarPubMed
Berg, Barbara J. 1995. Listening to the voices of the infertile. In Reproductive ethics and the law: Feminist perspectives, ed. Callahan, Joan C.Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Annette, Burfoot. 1993. From cow shed to clinic: Veterinary science and the new reproductive and genetic technologies. In Misconceptions: The social construction of choice and the new reproductive and genetic technologies, ed. Basen, GwynneEichler, Margrit, and Lippman, Abby. Prescott: Voyageur Publishing.Google Scholar
Corea, Gena. 1985. The mother machine: Reproductive technologies from artificial insemination to artificial wombs. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Corea, G., and De Wit, C. 1989. Current developments and issues: A summary. Reproductive and Genetic Engineering 2: 253–77.Google Scholar
Dawson, Karen. 1990. Introduction. In Embryo experimentation, eds. Singer, PeterKuhse, HelgaBuckle, StephenDawson, Karen, and Kasimba, Pascal. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Greer, Germaine. 1991. The change. Toronto: Alfred A. Knopf.Google Scholar
Haraway, Donna. 1991. Simians, cyborgs, and women: The reinvention of nature. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hartouni, Valerie. 1997. Cultural conceptions: On reproductive technologies and the remaking of life. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Lippman, Abby. 1994. Women's “childbearing age” as biomedical [rejcreation: Prenatal testing and postmenopausal pregnancy. In Misconceptions: The social construction of choice and the new reproductive and genetic technologies, ed. Basen, GwynneEichler, Margrit, and Lippman, Abby. Prescott: Voyageur Publishing.Google Scholar
Logothetis, Mary Lou. 1993. Disease or development: Women's perceptions of menopause and the need for hormone replacement therapy. In Menopause: A midlife passage, ed. Callahan, Joan C.Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
McCormack, Thelma. 1989. When is biology destiny? In The future of human reproduction, ed. Overall, Christine. Toronto: The Women's Press.Google Scholar
Morgan, Kathryn. 1989. Of woman born? How old‐fashioned!—New reproductive technologies and women's oppression. In The future of human reproduction, ed. Overall, Christine. Toronto: The Women's Press.Google Scholar
Murray, Terry. 1995. Canadian woman, 52, gives birth to IVF twins. The Medical Post, 15 June.Google Scholar
Overall, Christine. 1987. Ethics and human reproduction: A feminist analysis. Boston: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Patterson, Charlotte J. 1992. Children of lesbian and gay parents. Child Development 63: 1025–42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Paulson, R. J. and Sauer, M. V. 1994. Oocyte donation to women of advanced reproductive age: “How old is too old?” Human Reproduction 9(4): 571–72.Google Scholar
Poff, Deborah C. 1989. Reproductive technology and social policy in Canada. In The future of human reproduction, ed. Overall, Christine. Toronto: The Women's Press.Google Scholar
Pollitt, Katha. 1997. When I'm sixty‐four. The Nation 264(20): 12.Google Scholar
Raymond, Janice. 1989. Reproductive technologies, radical feminism, and socialist liberalism. Journal of Reproductive and Genetic Engineering 2 (2): 133–42.Google Scholar
Robertson, John, and Schulman, Joseph. 1987. Pregnancy and prenatal harm to offspring: The case of mothers with PKU. Hastings Center Report, August, 2332.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies. 1993. Proceed with Care (vol. 1). Minister of Government Services.Google Scholar
Sauer, M. V., Paulson, R. J., and Lobo, R. A. 1990. A preliminary report on oocyte donation extending reproductive potential to women over 40. New England Journal of Medicine 323: 1157–60.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sauer, M. V., Paulson, R. J., and Lobo, R. A. 1993. Pregnancy after age 50: Application of oocyte donation to women after natural menopause. The Lancet 341: 344–45.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, Patricia. 1993. Selfish genes and maternal myths: A look at postmenopausal pregnancy. In Menopause: A midlife passage, ed. Callahan, Joan C.Bloomington: Indiana Unversity Press.Google Scholar
Too old to have a baby? [editorial]. 1993. The Lancet 341: 344–45.Google Scholar
Mary Anne, Warren. 1989. IVF and women's interests: An analysis of feminist concerns. Bioethics 2: 3756.Google Scholar
Ziv, Laura. 1997. My dead daughter deserves to become a mother. Cosmopolitan, October, 166–68.Google Scholar