Jennifer Parks

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.

In this paper, I argue that bioethics suffers from a masculinist approach-what I call “ethical androcentrism.” Despite the genesis of other legitimate approaches to ethics (such as feminist, narrative, and communicative ethics), this masculinist tradition persists. The first part of my paper concerns the problem of ethical androcentrism, and how it is manifest in our typical ways of “doing” bioethics (as teachers, ethicists, policymakers, and medical practitioners). After arguing that bioethics suffers from a masculinist ethic, I consider the case of maternal substance addiction to show how this ethic negatively affects the treatment of pregnant addicts. I argue that by treating maternal substance addiction from an androcentric approach, we fail to serve both pregnant addicts and their fetuses; furthermore, we misrepresent the intentional state of pregnant substance addicts and label them “prenatal abusers.” If maternal substance addiction is to be ethically addressed -- and if pregnant substance addicts are to be effectively treated -- we cannot tacitly accept an androcentric ethic.

In this paper, I will argue that there is a deep connection between home-based care, technology, and the self. Providing the means for persons to receive care at home is not merely a kindness that respects their preference to be at home: it is an important means of extending their selfhood and respecting the unique selves that they are. Home-based technologies like telemedicine and robotic care may certainly be useful tools in providing care for persons at home, but they also have important implications for sustaining selfhood in ways that are of value to individuals and those who care for them. I will argue, by appealing to Hilde Lindemann’s notion of “holding” persons’ identities in place, that technological interventions are not only useful tools for improving and sustaining health and good care at home, but that they may also help to extend our personal identities and relational capacities in ways that are practically and ethically good. Because of these important goods, I will claim that there is a prima facie moral duty to do this “holding” work and that it is best done by family members and loved ones who are well suited to the job because of their history and relationship with the individual that needs to be “held” in place

Ethics, Aging and Society...is the first major work in ten years to critically address issues and methodologies in aging and ethics...This well-organized volume begins theoretically and offers new ways of thinking about ethics that can handle the complexities and realities of aging in particular social contexts."--Choice This new research-based book, by experts in the field of ethics, is excellent and much-needed...I challenge you to consider reading this book and seeing all the ways in which you might be forced to rethink things that most of us take as given for ethics and aging. I know you will not be disappointed and I guarantee you will end up thinking long and hard about personal and professional decisions you may have made as well as your assumptions about aging in America."--CFLE Network Newsletter This is a book that should be required reading for all involved in the ethical provision of services to the aging on any level, as well as for policy makers and administrators in positions of influence over the lives of older patients."--PsycCRITIQUES...the authors' application of feminist ethics to frail elders rings true to both my clinical experience working with frail elders, and my research experience trying to understand their quality of life concerns...there were true gems of ideas [in this book] that illuminated the limitations of the dominant paradigm of autonomy in bioethics. [The authors] make a compelling critique of end-of-life care."--GeriPal: A Geriatrics and Palliative Care Blog This book presents second generation issues in ethics, aging, and society by presenting critical outcomes that arise when ethics is applied to the practical concerns that occur in day-to-day elder care. The first volume in over 10 years to address ethics and gerontology, it is unparalleled in its comprehensiveness and integration of well-developed philosophical arguments with empirical research, humanistic scholarship, and insights gained from practical experience. This book challenges the tried and true approaches to ethical issues in aging and opens avenues for creative problem-solving. The authors' diverse backgrounds bring the advantages of both interdisciplinary scholarship and practical experience to this comprehensive textbook. It is an essential resource for those interested in, and working with, older people, from upper-level undergraduate students and graduate-division students, to gerontology practitioners in training. Key Features: Presents the first major work in over 10 years to integrate the disciplines of ethics and aging Includes case studies derived from day-to-day practice Addresses individual/clinical ethics in health and long-term care and ethical issues raised by public policy, cultural norms and social attitudes Examines such critical issues as Alzheimer's disease, long-term care, ageism, public policy, anti-aging medicine, elder abuse, and natural disasters Explores new directions in ethical and social philosophy as they pertain to gerontology and care.

Radical feminists have argued for both the radical potential of assisted reproductive technology (ART) and its oppressive and damaging effects for women. This paper will address the question of what constitutes a radical feminist position on ART; I will argue that the very debate over whether ART liberates or oppresses women is misguided, and that instead the issue should be understood dialectically. Reproductive technologies are neither inherently liberating nor entirely oppressive: we can only understand the potential and effects by considering how they are actually taken up within a culture. The internal contradictions, tensions, and inconsistencies within ART and the way it is addressed within the law points to a dialectic that resists a simple reductivist understanding.

In this paper, I argue that thestatus of those who take care of persons withdisabilities, and persons with disabilities,are inextricably linked. That is, devaluingthe status of one necessarily devalues that ofthe other. Persons with disabilities and thosewho help care for them must form an alliance toadvance their common interests. This alliancecan gain insight and inspiration from feministthought insofar as caretaking is literallylinked to problems of the representation ofcaretaking as ``women's work,'' and morephilosophically, by borrowing from the toolboxof feminist social, political, and economicanalyses.

This paper treats the political and ethical issues associated with the new caretaking technologies. Given the number of feminists who have raised serious concerns about the future of care work in the United States, and who have been critical of the degree to which society “free rides” on women's caretaking labor, I consider whether technology may provide a solution to this problem. Certainly, if we can create machines and robots to take on particular tasks, we may lighten the care burden that women currently face, much of which is heavy and repetitious, and which results in injury and care “burnout” for many female caretakers. Yet, in some contexts, I argue that high-tech robotic care may undermine social relationships, cutting individuals off from the possibility of social connectedness with others.