Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-x4r87 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T10:23:58.753Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

9 - A feminist care-ethics approach to genetics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 September 2009

Marian Verkerk
Affiliation:
Professor of Ethics, University of Groningen
Richard Ashcroft
Affiliation:
Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine, London
Anneke Lucassen
Affiliation:
University of Southampton
Michael Parker
Affiliation:
University of Oxford
Marian Verkerk
Affiliation:
Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, The Netherlands
Guy Widdershoven
Affiliation:
Universiteit Maastricht, Netherlands
Get access

Summary

Feminist care-ethics makes a difference when analysing and discussing healthcare issues. As a specific moral perspective it frames moral questions in healthcare in terms of responsibilities and is concerned more about the dangers of abandonment than the dangers of interference. The care perspective also invites us to re-examine and re-evaluate current conceptions of autonomy and moral relationships. In this chapter I shall try to show that care-ethics, as a relational ethics, makes a difference in the moral reading of problems arising in the use of genetics. In arguing this, I will start by presenting the main characteristics of care-ethics. I will then go on to discuss the issue of whether care-ethics can be seen as a feminist ethical perspective. In the final part of the chapter I will show how care ethics can make a difference to the discussion of ethical issues in genetics. In particular, I shall concentrate on the tension between responsibility toward others and the value of personal autonomy.

Care ethics

In 1982, Carol Gilligan published In a Different Voice, in which she put forward the thesis that a so-called ethics of justice gives only a partial voice to the moral experiences of men and especially of women. An ethics of justice, needs to be complemented by an ethics of care that is capable of articulating the moral values of nurturing and caring. In developing this care perspective Gilligan challenged the idea that abstract and universalistic moral reasoning was the best way of thinking about moral problems.

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2005

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

Benson, P., (2000). Feeling crazy: self-worth and the social character of responsibility: In Mackenzie and Stoljar (2000), 72–93 (see below).
Carse, A. I. and Nelson, Lindemann H. (1996). Rehabilitating care. Kennedy Inst Ethics J, 6(1), 19–35.Google ScholarPubMed
Code, L., (1991). What Can She Know? Feminist Theory and the Construction of Knowledge. New York: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Dillon, R. (1992). Respect and care: toward moral integration. Can J Philosophy, 22, 105–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donchin, A., (2000). Autonomy and interdependence: quandaries in genetic decision making. In Mackenzie and Stoljar (2000), 239–40 (see below).
Gilligan, C., (1993). In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women's Development. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Govier, T. (1993). Self-trust, autonomy and self-esteem. Hypatia, 8(1), 99–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hampton, J. (1997). The wisdom of the egoist: the moral and political implications of valuing the self. Soc Philosophy Policy, 14(1), 21–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Held, V., (1993). Feminist Morality: Transforming Culture, Society and Politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hoagland, S. L. (1990). Some concerns about Nel Noddings' caring. Hypatia, 5(March), 107–14.Google Scholar
Jaggar, A. (1989). Feminist ethics: some issues for the nineties. J Soc Philosophy, 20, 91–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaggar A. (1995). Caring as a feminist practice of moral reason. In Held, V., ed., Justice and Care: Essential Readings in Feminist Ethics. Boulder: Westview Press, 179–202.Google Scholar
Kohlberg, L., (1981). The Philosophy of Moral Development: Moral Stages and the Idea of Justice. San Francisco: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Nelson, Lindemann H. and Nelson, Lindemann J. (1995). The Patient in the Family. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Little, M. O. (1998). Care: from theory to orientation and back. J Med Philosophy, 23(2), 90–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackenzie, C. and Stoljar, N., eds. (2000). Relational Autonomy: Feminist Perspectives on Autonomy, Agency and the Social Self. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
McCullough, L. B. (1998). Molecular medicine, managed care and the moral responsibilities of patients and physicians. J Med Philosophy, 23(1), 3–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meyers, D., (1989). Self, Society and Personal Choice. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Noddings, N., (1984). Caring: A Feminine Approach to Ethics and Moral Education. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Reich, W. T., (1995). History of the notion of care. In Reich, W. T., ed., Encyclopedia of Bioethics. New York: Macmillan USA, 319–44.Google Scholar
Rich, A. (1980). Compulsory heterosexuality and lesbian existence. Signs, 5, 631–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ricoeur, P., (1992). Oneself as Another. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 191.Google Scholar
Silvers, A. (1995). Reconciling equality to difference: caring (f)or justice for people with disabilities. Hypatia, 10(1), 30–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tong, R., (1996). Feminist approaches to bioethics. In Wolf, S. M., ed., Feminism and Bioethics: Beyond Reproduction. New York: Oxford University Press, 67–95.Google Scholar
Tronto, J., (1993). Moral Boundaries: A Political Argument for an Ethics of Care. New York: Routledge, 103.Google Scholar
Veatch, R. (1998). The place of care in ethical theory. J Med Philosophy, 23(2), 210–24.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Walker, M. U. (1991a). Moral understandings: alternative ‘epistemology’ for a feminist ethics. Hypatia, 4(2), 16–28.Google Scholar
Walker, M. U. (1991b). Partial consideration. Ethics, 101(4), 758–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, M. T. (1999). Making responsible decisions: an interpretive ethic for genetic decision-making. Hastings Center Report, 99, 1.Google Scholar
Wolf, S. M., ed., (1996). Feminism and Bioethics: Beyond Reproduction. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×