Archives
ART Eligibility for Lesbians and Single Heterosexual Women in Victoria
How medicalisation influenced a political, legal and policy debate
Deborah Dempsey
Faculty of Life and Social Sciences, Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne VIC
Abstract
This article analyses the seven year long Victorian political, policy and law reform debate over eligibility criteria for assisted reproductive technology (ART), emphasising the ways in which medicalised discourse and assumptions framed the arguments advanced by various stakeholders.
It argues that despite the positive political, social justice and health gains for lesbian and gay prospective parents and their children that were ultimately achieved, the case made for the decriminalisation of self-insemination and increased access to clinical ART services also involved some disappointing political and intellectual compromises along the way.
Although lesbian activism regarding ART eligibility criteria was often consistent with a position of what could be called ‘constructive medicalisation' (Broom and Woodward 1996), the debate also demonstrated how easily constructive medicalisation arguments were side-lined in favour of arguments drawing on dominant medicalised discourses about infertility treatment and risk.
Keywords
sociology, medicalisation, assisted reproductive technology, lesbian parents, donor insemination, activism
References
Albury R (1999) The Politics of Reproduction: Beyond the Slogans, Allen & Unwin: Sydney.
Arditti R, Klein R and Minden S (1984) Test-Tube Women: What Future for Motherhood? Pandora: London.
Borthwick P and Bloch B (1993) Mothers and Others: An Exploration of Lesbian Parenting in Australia, Jam Jar Publishing: Sydney.
Boston Women's Health Collective (1976) Our Bodies, Our Selves, Simon and Shuster: New York.
Broom D and Woodward R (1996) Medicalisation reconsidered: Toward a collaborative approach to care, Sociology of Health and Illness 18(3): 357-378.
Chapman MG, Driscoll GL and Jones B (2006) Missed conceptions: The need for education, Medical Journal of Australia 184(7): 361-2.
Conrad P and Schneider JW (1980) Deviance and Medicalisation: From Badness to Sickness, CV Mosby: St Louis.
Corea G (1984) Egg snatchers, in Arditti J, Klein R and Minden S (eds) Test-Tube Women: What Future for Motherhood? Pandora: London, pp.201-222.
Costa G and Ketchell M (2001) State acts to give IVF aid to lesbians, The Age November 15: 3.
Dargan F (2001) IVF rules may include lesbians, Herald Sun November 14: 2.
Dempsey D (2002) Reproducing intimacy and kinship beyond intercourse: Lesbians practising self-insemination, Meridian 18(2): 103-121.
Dempsey D (2006a) Active fathers, natural families and children's origins: Dominant themes in the Australian political debate over eligibility for assisted reproductive technology, Australian Journal of Emerging Technologies and Society 4(1) [access on-line at www.swin.edu.au/ajets]
Dempsey D (2006b) Beyond Choice: Family and Kinship in the Australian Lesbian and Gay 'Baby Boom', unpublished PhD thesis Melbourne: La Trobe University.
Dunn A (2004) Lesbians get OK for donor sperm, The Age August 4: 3.
Feminist Self-Insemination Group (1980) Self-Insemination, Feminist Self-Insemination Group: London.
Fertility Access Rights Lobby (1999) Access to Fertility Services in Victoria for Lesbians and Single Women: A Discussion Paper, FAR: Melbourne.
Fertility Access Rights Lobby (2004) FAR Submission to the VLRC Consultation Paper, FAR: Melbourne.
Fertility Society of Australia (Reproductive Technology Accreditation Committee) (2002) Code of Practice For Centres Using Assisted Reproductive Technology (revised edition).
Foucault M (1986) The Care of the Self: The History of Sexuality Vol 3, Pantheon: New York.
Franklin S (1993) Essentialism: Which essentialism? Some implications of reproductive and genetic techno-science, Journal of Homosexuality 24(3-4): 27-40.
Gerhardt U (1989) The sociological image of medicine and the patient, Social Science and Medicine 29(6): 721-8.
Hanks P (2000) Memorandum of Advice to Fertility Access Rights Lobby on Infertility Treatment Act (Vic) 1995, Melbourne.
Hanmer J (1987) Transforming consciousness: Women and the new reproductive technologies, in Corea G, Klein R, Hanmer J, Holmes HB, Hoskins B, Kishwar M, Raymond J, Rowland R and Steinbacher R (eds) Man-Made Women: How New Reproductive Technologies Affect Women, Indiana University Press: Bloomington, pp.12-31.
Illich I (1975) Medical Nemesis: The Expropriation of Health, Calder and Boyars: London.
Infertility Treatment Act 1995 (Vic) Version No.012, http://www.dms.dpc.vic.gov.au [accessed 12.12.02].
Jagose A (1996) Queer Theory, Melbourne University Press: Melbourne.
Kirkman M (2001) Infertile women and radical feminism: Conflicting narratives of assisted reproductive technology, in Daly J, Guillemin M and Hill S (eds) Technologies and Health: Critical Compromises, Oxford University Press: Melbourne, pp.178-185.
Klein R (1984) Doing it ourselves: Self-insemination, in Arditti R, Klein R and Minden S (eds) Test-Tube Women: What Future for Motherhood? Pandora: London, pp.52-71.
Kleinig J (2008) The ethics of harm reduction, Substance Use and Misuse 43(1): 1-16.
Lane K (2006) The plasticity of professional boundaries: A case study of collaborative care in maternity services, Health Sociology Review 15(4): 341-352.
Laws PJ and Sullivan EA (2005) Australia's Mothers and Babies 2003, Catalogue number PER 29, Perinatal Statistics Series No. 16, Australian Institute of Health and Welfare: Canberra.
Lupton D (1997) Foucault and the medicalisation critique, in Petersen A and Bunton R (eds) Foucault, Health and Medicine, Routledge: London, pp.121-142.
Lupton D (1999) (ed) Risk and Socio-Cultural Theory: New Directions and Perspectives, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.
McBain J (2000) Untitled paper presented to The Great IVF Debate, Royal Children's Hospital, Melbourne, August 14.
McNair R (2004) Outcomes for Children Born of ART in a Diverse Range of Families, Victorian Law Reform Commission: Melbourne.
McNair R, Dempsey D, Wise S and Perlesz A (2002) Lesbian parenting: Issues, strengths and challenges, Family Matters 63:40-9.
Millbank J (2003) From here to maternity: A review of the research on lesbian and gay families, Australian Journal of Social Issues 38(4): 541-600.
Mohler M and Frazer L (2002) A Donor Insemination Guide, Harrington Park Press: New York.
Pepper R (1999) The Ultimate Guide to Pregnancy for Lesbians, Cleis Press: San Francisco.
Pfeffer N (1987) Artificial insemination, in-vitro fertilisation and the stigma of infertility, in Stanworth M (ed) Reproductive Technologies: Gender, Motherhood and Medicine, Polity Press: Oxford.
Pies C (1988) Considering Parenthood 2nd edn, Spinsters Ink: Minneapolis.
Possamai-Inesedy A (2006) Confining risk: Choice and responsibility in childbirth in a risk society, Health Sociology Review 15(4): 406-414.
Rose N (1994) Medicine, history and the present, in Jones C and Porter R (eds) Reassessing Foucault: Power, Medicine and the Body, Routledge: London, pp.95-118.
Rowland R (1984) Reproductive technologies: The final solution to the woman problem, in Arditti R, Klein R and Minden S (eds) Test-Tube Women: What Future for Motherhood? Pandora: London, pp.33-52.
Skene L (2000) Access to assisted reproduction technology (ART) by single and gay women in Victoria, paper presented to The Great IVF Debate, Royal Children's Hospital, Melbourne, August 14.
Stein A (1997) Sex and Sensibility: Stories of a Lesbian Generation, University of California Press: Los Angeles.
Strathern M (1992) Reproducing the Future, Routledge: New York.
Szoke H (2000) ITA policy decision in the case of McBain v Victoria, paper presented to The Great IVF Debate, Royal Children's Hospital, Melbourne, August 14.
Victorian Government (1983) Report on Donor Gametes in IVF/Committee to Consider the Social, Ethical and Legal Issues Arising From In Vitro Fertilisation (Waller Committee), Melbourne.
Victorian Law Reform Commission (2003) Assisted Reproductive Technology and Adoption: Should the Current Eligibility Criteria in Victoria be Changed? VLRC: Melbourne.
Victorian Law Reform Commission (2005) Position Paper One: Access to Assisted Reproductive Technology, Donation of Gametes and Embryos, and Posthumous Use of Gametes, VLRC: Melbourne.
Victorian Law Reform Commission (2007) Assisted Reproductive Technology and Adoption: Final Report, VLRC: Melbourne.
Walker KL (2000) 1950s family values vs. human rights: In vitro fertilisation, donor insemination and sexuality in Victoria, Public Law Review 11: 292.
Willis E (2006) Introduction: Taking stock of medical dominance, Health Sociology Review 15(5): 421-431.
Whelan J (2000) Medicare threat on 'socially infertile', The Age August 4: 2.
Zajdow G (2005) What are we scared of? The absence of sociology in current debates about drug treatments and policies, Journal of Sociology 41(2): 185-199.
eContent Home