Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T08:35:02.523Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On Teaching Biopolicy and Values in Selected Reproductive Technologies: Abortion, In Vitro Fertilization, and Surrogate Motherhood

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 May 2016

Lois B. Moreland
Lois B. Moreland*
Affiliation:
Political Science Department, Spelman College Atlanta, Georgia 30314
Get access

Abstract

This article is divided into three parts: “Faculty Preparation: Immersion in the Literature,” “Conceptualizing and Organizing the Course,” and “Course Design.” The first part is addressed particularly to readers without access to a computer search of the literature. It suggests resource materials for each of the technologies. It also speaks to the meanings of and approaches which may be used to study biopolitics. Biopolicy is the approach used in the course.

The second part addresses the problem of finding a unifying concept which would bring cohesion to the multiple and diverse materials and issues. It also includes the statement of purpose and course objectives. It is here that the development of identifying and demonstrating the nexus between the reproductive technologies and public policy begins. It also discusses methodologies used in the course.

The third part lists the activities that served as a guide in designing the course and cites remaining caveats in course development. The paper concludes with statements about required reading materials, review materials, audio-visual aids, and a broad outline of the course.

Type
Specific Courses in Politics and the Life Sciences
Information
Politics and the Life Sciences , Volume 5 , Issue 1 , August 1986 , pp. 75 - 82
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Politics and the Life Sciences 

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

American Association for the Advancement of Science. Science 85 6(9).Google Scholar
Amplified Bible. (1965). Grand Rapids: Zondervan Bible Publishers.Google Scholar
Andrews, L. (1984a). New Conceptions: A Consumer's Guide to the Newest Infertility Treatments Including In Vitro Fertilization, Artificial Insemination and Surrogate Motherhood. New York: St. Martin's Press.Google Scholar
Andrews, L. (1984b). “The Stork Market: The Law of the New Reproduction Technologies.” American Bar Association Journal August: 50–56.Google Scholar
Bayles, M. D. (1984). Reproductive Ethics. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc.Google Scholar
Blank, R. H. (1982). “Biopolicy: A Restatement of its Role in Politics and the Life Sciences.” Politics and the Life Sciences 1: 38–42; 48–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blank, R. H. (1984). Redefining Human Life: Reproductive Technologies and Social Policy. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Brophy, M. K. (1981–82). “A Surrogate Contract to Bear a Child.” Journal of Family Law 20: 263–291.Google Scholar
Callahan, S., and Callahan, D., eds. (1984). Abortion: Understanding Differences. New York: Plenum Press.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carson, S. A., and Marut, E. F. (1985). “Problem Solving in Infertility and Endocrinology.” Audio-Digest Obstetrics/Gynecology, Glendale, Calif.: Audio-Digest Foundation, Vol. 32, No. 6.Google Scholar
Cohen, B. (1984). “Surrogate Mothers: Whose Baby Is It?” American Journal of Law and Medicine 10: 243–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Darwin, C. (1859). The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selections. New York: John B. Alden.Google Scholar
Diamond v. Charles; Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetrics and Gynecologists. (1985). “Supreme Court tackles 2 abortion issues.” American Medical News. December 6: 1.Google Scholar
Elshtain, J. B. (1984). “Reflections on Abortion, Values, and the Family.” In Callahan, S. and Callahan, D. (eds.), Abortion: Understanding Differences. New York: Plenum Press, pp. 47–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ethics Advisory Board, Department of Health, Education and Welfare (1979). Report and Conclusions: HEW Support of Research Involving Human In Vitro Fertilization and Embryo Transfer. Washington, D. C.: GPO.Google Scholar
Ginsberg, B. E. (1982). “Review of Sociobiology and Human Politics.” Politics and the Life Sciences 1: 75–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grobstein, C., Flower, M., and Mendeloff, J. (1983). “External Human Fertilization: An Evaluation of Policy.” Science 222: 127–133.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goulden, P., and Naitove, B. (1984). Medical Science and the Law. New York: Facts on File Publications.Google Scholar
Hibbard, L. T., Marrs, R. P., and Vargyas, J. M. (1984). “Current Practices and Techniques of In Vitro Fertilization and Embryo Replacement.” Audio-Digest Obstetrics/Gynecology. Glendale, Calif.: Audio-Digest Foundation, Vol. 31, No. 1.Google Scholar
Holder, A. R. (1985). “Surrogate Motherhood: Babies for Fun and Profit.” Case and Comment 90 (2): 3–9.Google Scholar
Human Female Reproductive System Anatomy Model and Keyed Study Manual (1981). Westwood, Mass.: Damon Corporation.Google Scholar
Human Male Reproductive System Anatomy Model and Keyed Study Manual (1981). Westwood, Mass.: Damon Corporation.Google Scholar
Keeton, W. T. (1980). Biological Science. New York: W. W. Norton and Co., Inc.Google Scholar
Madison, J. (1787). The Federalist, No. 10. In Burns, J. M., Peltason, J. W., Cronin, T. E., Government by the People (12th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., pp. 582–584.Google Scholar
Maslow, A. H., ed. (1959). New Knowledge in Human Values. South Bend, Ind.: Regenery/Gateway, Inc.Google Scholar
Moore, H. L. (1977). Before We Are Born. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders Co.Google Scholar
Nicholas, H. (1980). Public Administration and Public Affairs. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc.Google Scholar
Perry, J. A., and Perry, E. K. (1984). Contemporary Society An Introduction to Social Science. New York: Harper and Row, Publishers.Google Scholar
Platt, L. D., and Goldstein, A. I. (1984). “Practical Genetics.” Audio-Digest Obstetrics/Gynecology. Glendale, Calif.: Audio-Digest Foundation, Vol. 31, No. 20.Google Scholar
President's Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research (1983). Screening and Counseling for Genetic Conditions. Washington, D. C.: GPO.Google Scholar
Reich, W. T., ed. (1978). Encyclopedia of Bioethics. 4 vols. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Schaeffer, F. A., and Koop, C. E. (1979). Whatever Happened to the Human Race? Old Tappan, N. J.: Fleming H. Revell Co.Google Scholar
Schenker, J., Laufer, G., Navot, D., Margalioth, E. J., Yarkoni, S., Rabinowitz, R., and Voss, R. (1983). “In Vitro Fertilization and Embryo Transfer—Legal and Religious Aspects in Israel, Patient Selection, and a Modified Technique for Oocyte Collection.” Israel Journal of Medical Sciences 19: 218–224.Google Scholar
Shaw, W. W., and Doudera, A. E., eds. (1983). “Part Three: Legal Implications.” Defining Human Life: Medical, Legal, and Ethical Implications. Ann Arbor: AUPHA Press, pp. 121–201.Google Scholar
Watts, M. (1982). “Review of Sociobiology and Human Politics.” Politics and the Life Sciences 1 (1): 73–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiegele, T. C. (1979). Biopolitics: Search for a More Human Political Science. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Wilson, E. O. (1975). Sociobiology: The New Synthesis. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Wood, C., and Westmore, A. (1984). Test-Tube Conception. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc.Google Scholar
Zisk, B. H. (1981). Political Research. Lexington, Mass.: D. C. Heath and Co.Google Scholar