Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c4f8m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T19:13:49.481Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Framing Women, Framing Fetuses: How Britain Regulates Arrangements for the Collection and Use of Aborted Fetuses in Stem Cell Research and Therapies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 December 2007

Naomi Pfeffer  and
Julie Kent
Naomi Pfeffer
Affiliation:
Department of Applied Social Sciences, London Metropolitan University, 62–66 Highbury Grove, London N5 2ADUK E-mail: n.pfeffer@londonmet.ac.uk
Julie Kent
Affiliation:
School of Sociology, Faculty of Humanities, Languages and Social Sciences, University of the West of England, Coldharbour Lane, Bristol BS16 1QYUK E-mail: julie.kent@uwe.ac.uk
Get access

Abstract

This article engages with the frequently made claim that the UK has a transparent, accountable and strict but permissive regulatory approach to research using pre-implantation human embryos created in vitro and that this approach provides reassurance to the public in a particularly emotive area, has the full confidence of the scientific and medical research communities, and gives the UK a competitive advantage in the international field of stem cell research. Aborted fetuses are another controversial source of stem cells although their use is less widely known. The paper uses Jasanoff’s conceptual tool of framing to analyse the history of the legislative and governance arrangements for the collection of aborted fetuses for use in stem cell research and therapies in Britain. We argue that the arrangements are confused, lack transparency, are out of line with current good practice on seeking consent, and that non-compliance with regulations is condoned. Furthermore, in our view, the separation of legal and governance arrangements for collection and use of pre-implantation human embryos and aborted fetuses will increasingly become problematic, and we conclude by proposing that there is increasingly a potential for conflict between them.

Keywords

abortionBritainfetusesgovernancehuman embryosstem cell research
Type
Articles
Information
BioSocieties , Volume 2 , Issue 4 , December 2007 , pp. 429 - 447
Copyright
Copyright © London School of Economics and Political Science 2007

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

Ashcroft, R., & Pfeffer, N. (2001). Ethics behind closed doors: Do research ethics committees need secrecy? British Medical Journal, 322, 1294–1296.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boer, G.J. (1994). Ethical guidelines for the use of human embryonic or fetal tissue for experimental and clinical neurotransplantation and research. Journal of Neurology, 242, 1–13.Google Scholar
Braude, P., Minger, S.L., & Warwick, R.M. (2005). Stem cell therapy: Hope or hype? British Medical Journal, 330, 1159–1160.Google Scholar
British Medical Journal (1970). Editorial: Experiments on the fetus. British Medical Journal, i, 433.Google Scholar
Brown, N., Faulkner, A., Kent, J., & Michael, M. (2006). Regulating hybrids: ‘Making a mess’ and ‘cleaning up’ in tissue engineering and transpecies transplantations. Social Theory and Health, 4, 1–24.Google Scholar
Conference of Medical Colleges and their Faculties (1976). Diagnosis of brain death. British Medical Journal, ii, 1187–1188.Google Scholar
Council of Europe (2002). Guide to safety and quality assurance for organs, tissues and cells, 1st edn. Brussels: Council of Europe.Google Scholar
Department of Health (1995). Guidance on the use of fetal tissue for research, diagnosis and therapy. London: Department of Health.Google Scholar
Department of Health (2000). Stem cell research: Medical progress with responsibility. A report from the Chief Medical Officer’s Expert Group, reviewing the potential of developments in stem cells research and cell nuclear replacement to benefit human health. URL (accessed February 2006): http://www/dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyandGuidance/DH_4065084Google Scholar
Department of Health (2002). Human bodies, human choices. The law on human organs and tissue in England and Wales. A consultation report. London: Department of Health.Google Scholar
Department of Health (2005a). Abortion statistics, England and Wales: Statistical Bulletin 2005/11. URL (accessed December 2006): http://www.dh.gov.uk/assetRoot/04/11/75/74/04117574.pdfGoogle Scholar
Department of Health (2005b). Review of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act: A public consultation. URL (accessed January 2006): http://www.dh.gov.uk/assetRoot/04/11/78/72/04117872.pdfGoogle Scholar
European Commission (1998). Directive 98/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions. Official Journal of the EU, L213.Google Scholar
European Commission (2004). Directive 2004/23/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on setting standards of quality and safety for the donation, procurement, testing, processing, preservation, storage and distribution of human tissues and cells. Para (11) Official Journal of the European Union, L102 (31 March).Google Scholar
European Commission (2005). Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on advanced therapy medicinal products and amending Directive 2001/83/EC and Regulation EC no. 726/2004 COM (2005) 567 final. Brussels 16.11.2005.Google Scholar
European Group on Ethics (1998). Opinion 11 on ethical aspects of human tissue banking. URL (accessed September 2006): http://ec.europa.eu/european_group_ethics/docs/avis11_en.pdfGoogle Scholar
Faulkner, A., Kent, J., Geesink, I., & FitzPatrick, D. (2006). Purity and the dangers of regenerative medicine: Regulatory innovation of human tissue-engineered technology. Social Science & Medicine,63,2277–2288.Google Scholar
Franklin, S. (1991). Fetal fascinations: New dimensions to the medical-scientific construction of fetal personhood. In S. Franklin, C. Lury, & J. Stacey, (Eds), Off-centre: Feminism and cultural studies, 190–205. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Franklin, S. (2006). Embryonic economies: The double reproductive value of stem cells. Biosocieties, 1, 71–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamoda, H., Critchley, H.O., Paterson, K., Guthrie, K., Rodger, M., & Penney, G.C. (2005). The acceptability of home medical abortion to women in UK settings. BJOG, 112(6), 781–785.Google Scholar
Harris, J. (2004). EUROSTEM, The ethics of stem cell research and therapy in Europe. Draft ethical framework document. URL (accessed October 2006): http://www.law.manchester.ac.ukGoogle Scholar
Hitchcock, E.R., Clough, C., Hughes, R., & Kenny, B. (1988). Embryos and Parkinson’s disease. Lancet, 8597, 1274.Google Scholar
Hopkins, N., Zeedyk, S., & Raitt, F. (2005). Visualising abortion: Emotion, discourse and fetal imagery in a contemporary abortion debate. Social Science & Medicine, 61,393–403.Google Scholar
Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (1994a). Donated ovarian tissue in embryo research and assisted conception: Consultation document. London: HFEA.Google Scholar
Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (1994b). Donated ovarian tissue in embryo research and assisted conception: Report. London: HFEA.Google Scholar
Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (2004a). Press release 7th May 2004. URL (accessed September 2006): http://www.hfea.gov.uk/en/891.htmlGoogle Scholar
Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (2004b). Press release 25th November. 2004. URL (accessed September 2006): http://www.hfea.gov.uk/en/891.htmlGoogle Scholar
Human Tissue Authority (2006a). The birth of a regulator. Human Tissue Authority. Annual report and accounts 2005/6. URL (accessed September 2006): http://www.hta.gov.uk/_db/_documents/HTA_Annual_Report_2005-6_final.pdfGoogle Scholar
Human Tissue Authority (2006b). Code of practice—consent. URL (accessed October 2006): http://www.hta.gov.uk/_db/_documents/2006-07-04_Approved_by_Parliament_-_Code_of_Practice_1_-_Removal.pdfGoogle Scholar
Hutter, B.M. (1997). Compliance: Regulation and environment. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Hyde, A. (1997). Bodies of law. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, E. (2000).Abortion, autonomy and prenatal diagnosis. Social & Legal Studies,9,467–494.Google Scholar
Jasanoff, J. (2005). Designs on nature: Science and democracy in Europe and the United States. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Kent, J., Faulkner, A., Geesink, I., & FitzPatrick, D. (2006). ‘Towards governance of human tissue engineered technologies in Europe: Framing the case for a new regulatory regime’, Technology Forecasting and Social Change, 73,41–60.Google Scholar
Kent, J., & Pfeffer, N. (2006). Regulating the collection and use of fetal stem cells. British Medical Journal, 332, 866.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lindvall, O., & Bjorklund, A. (2004). Cell therapy in Parkinson’s disease. NeuroRx, 1,382–393.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Maienschein, J. (2002). What’s in a name: Embryos, clones and stem cells? American Journal of Bioethics,2,12–19.Google Scholar
Marsh, D., & Chambers, J. (1981). Abortion politics. London: Junction Books.Google Scholar
Maynard-Moody, S. (1995). The dilemma of the fetus: Fetal research, medical progress and moral politics. New York: St Martin’s Press.Google Scholar
Medical Research Council (2001). Human tissue and biological samples for use in research: Operational and ethical guidelines. URL (accessed February 2006): http:///www.mrc.ac.uk/Utilities/Documentrecord/Index.htm?d=MRC002420Google Scholar
Medical Research Council (2005). Code of practice for the use of human stem cell lines, Version 2. URL (accessed September 2006): http://www.mrc.ac.uk/prn/pdf-public-stem_cell_code_of_practice_june2005Google Scholar
Nuffield Council on Bioethics (2000). Stem cell therapy: The ethical issues: A discussion paper. URL (accessed February 2006): http:///www.nuffieldbioethics.org/go/ourwork/humantissue/introductionGoogle Scholar
Peel Report (1972). The use of fetuses and fetal material for research: Report of the Advisory Group. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
Petchevsky, R. (1987). Foetal images: The power of visual culture in the politics of abortion. In M. Stanworth, (Ed.), Reproductive technologies: Gender, motherhood and medicine, 57–80. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Pfeffer, N. (1987). Artificial insemination, in-vitro fertilization and the stigma of infertility. In M. Stanworth, (Ed.) Reproductive technologies: Gender, motherhood and medicine 81–97. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Pfeffer, N. (2002). Fertility counts: From equity to outcome. In Sturdy, S. (Ed.), Medicine, health and the public sphere in Britain, 1600–2000, 260–278. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Pfeffer, N., & Kent, J. (2006).Consent to the use of aborted fetuses in stem cell research and therapies. Clinical Ethics, 1, 216–218.Google Scholar
Polkinghorne Report (1989). Review of the guidance on the research use of fetuses and fetal material, Cmnd. 762. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
Roper, J. (1970). Foetus denial by surgeon. The Times, 21 May.Google Scholar
Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (2004a). The care of women requesting induced abortion: Evidence-based clinical guideline No 7. URL (accessed February 2006): http://www.rcog.org.uk/resources/Public/pdf/induced-abortionfull.pdfGoogle Scholar
Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (2004b). Response to MRC draft code of practice for the UK stem cell bank). URL (accessed February 2006): http://www.rcog.org.uk/index.asp?PageID=1349Google Scholar
Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, Royal College of Pathologists Joint Working Party (2001). Fetal and perinatal pathology. URL (accessed February 2006): http://www.rcog.org.uk/index.asp?PageID=1172Google Scholar
Royal Liverpool Children’s Inquiry (2001). The Royal Liverpool Children’s Inquiry Report. London: Stationery Office.Google Scholar
Shamblott, M.J., Axelman, J., Wang, S., Bugg, E.M., Littlefield, J.W., Donovan, P.J. et al. (1998). Derivation of pluripotent stem cells from cultured human primordial germ cells. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 95(23): 13726–12731.Google Scholar
Sheldon, S. (1997). Beyond control: Medical power and abortion law. London: Pluto.Google Scholar
Tocci, A., Roberts, I.A., Kumar, S., Bennett, P.R., & Fisk, N.M. (2003). CD34+ cells from first-trimester fetal blood are enriched in primitive hemopoietic progenitors. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 189(3), 1002–1010.Google Scholar
Warnock Report (1984). Report of the committee of enquiry into human fertilisation and embryology, Cmd. 9314. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
Williams, C., Alderson, P., & Farsides, P. (2001). Conflicting perceptions of the fetus: Person, patient, ‘nobody’, commodity? New Genetics and Society, 20, 225–238.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed