Precarious labour: on egg donation as work

Bibliography

• Alexandros of Antioch. Venus de Milo. Marble. Paris: Louvre Museum, 101 BC.
   Google Scholar
• Almeling, Rene. Sex Cells: The Medical Market for Eggs and Sperm. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2011.
   Google Scholar
• Arat-Koc, Sedef. “In the Privacy of Our Own Home: Foreign Domestic Workers as Solution to the Crisis of the Domestic Sphere in Canada.” Studies in Political Economy 28 (1989): 33–58.
   Google Scholar
• Atwood, Margaret. The Handmaid’s Tale. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1985.
   Google Scholar
• Bakker, Isabella, and Stephen Gill. “Global Political Economy and Social Reproduction.” In Power, Production and Social Reproduction: Human In/Security in the Global Political Economy, edited by Isabella Bakker and Stephen Gill, 3–16. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003.
   Google Scholar
• Baylis, Françoise, and Jocelyn Downie. “Transnational Trade in Human Eggs: Law, Policy, and (In)Action in Canada.” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 41, no. 1 (2013): 224–39.
   Google Scholar
• Baylis, Françoise, and Jocelyn Downie. “The Tale of Assisted Human Reproduction Canada: A Tragedy in Five Acts.” Canadian Journal of Women and the Law 25, no. 2 (2013): 183–201.
   Google Scholar
• Blackwell, Tom. “The Impotence of Canada’s Fertility Laws: Embryos for Sale, Wombs for Rent.” National Post, February 14, 2009.
   Google Scholar
• Boris, Eileen, and Rhacel Salazar Parreñas, eds. Intimate Labors: Cultures, Technologies, and the Politics of Care. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2010.
   Google Scholar
• Busby, Karen, and Delaney Vun. “Revisiting the Handmaid’s Tale: Feminist Theory Meets Empirical Research on Surrogate Mothers.” Canadian Journal of Family Law 26, no. 1 (2010): 13–93.
   Google Scholar
• Butler, Judith. “Merely Cultural.” New Left Review I/227 (1998): 33–44.
   Google Scholar
• Canada. Health Canada. In New Reproductive and Genetic Technologies: Setting Boundaries, Enhancing Health. Ottawa: Health Canada, 1996.
   Google Scholar
• Canada. Health Canada. In Feedback Report: Submissions and Written Comments on Proposed Federal RGTs Legislation. Ottawa: Health Canada, 2000.
   Google Scholar
• Canada. Parliament. Standing Committee on Health. In Assisted Human Reproduction: Building Families. Ottawa: House of Commons, 2001.
   Google Scholar
• Carlson, Kathryn B. “Baby by Stealth: Reproduction Law Forcing ‘Dangerous Alternatives.’” National Post, March 12, 2010.
   Google Scholar
• Cattapan, Alana. “Risky Business: Surrogacy, Egg Donation, and the Politics of Exploitation.” Canadian Journal of Law and Society 29, no. 3 (2014): 361–79.
   Google Scholar
• Cohen, Marjorie Griffin, and Jane Pulkingham, eds. Public Policy for Women: The State, Income Security, and Labour Market Issues. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2009.
   Google Scholar
• Cooper, Melinda, and Catherine Waldby. Clinical Labor: Tissue Donors and Research Subjects in the Global Bioeconomy. Durham: Duke University Press, 2014.
   Google Scholar
• Corea, Gena. The Mother Machine: Reproductive Technologies from Artificial Insemination to Artificial Wombs. New York: Harper and Row, 1985.
   Google Scholar
• Crozier, Gillian K. D., Jennifer L. Johnson, and Christopher Hajzler. “At the Intersections of Emotional and Biological Labor: Understanding Transnational Commercial Surrogacy as Social Reproduction.” International Journal of Feminist Approaches to Bioethics 7, no. 2 (2014): 45–74.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eichler, Margrit. “Frankenstein Meets Kafka: The Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies.” In Misconceptions: The Social Construction of Choice and the New Reproductive and Genetic Technologies, vol. 1, edited by Gwynne Basen, Margrit Eichler, and Abby Lippman, 196–222. Hull: Voyageur Publishing, 1993.
   Google Scholar
• Federici, Sylvia. Wages Against Housework. Bristol, UK: Power of Women Collective and Falling Wall Press, 1975. Accessed 2015. https://caringlabor.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/federici-wages-against-housework.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Firestone, Shulamith. The Dialectic of Sex: The Case for Feminist Revolution. New York: Bantam, 1970.
   Google Scholar
• Galloway, Gloria. “Agency Has Little to Show for Millions in Funding,” The Globe and Mail, June 1, 2012.
   Google Scholar
• Garland-Thomson, Rosemarie. “Integrating Disability, Transforming Feminist Theory.” NWSA Journal 14, no. 3 (2002): 1–32.
   Google Scholar
• Gruben, Vanessa. “Women as Patients, Not Spare Parts: Examining the Relationship Between the Physician and Women Egg Providers.” Canadian Journal of Women and the Law 25, no. 2 (2013): 249–83.
   Google Scholar
• Haimes, Erica, and Ken Taylor. “Fresh Embryo Donation for human Embryonic Stem Cell (hESC) Research: The Experiences and Values of IVF Couples Asked to Be Embryo Donors.” Human Reproduction 24, no. 9 (2009): 2142–50.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Havelock, John, Liu Kimberly, Levitan Sherry, PetropanagosAngel, and Lawrence Kahn. Guidelines on Third Party Reproduction. Canadian Fertility and Andrology Society, 2016. Accessed 2016. https://cfas.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Third-Party-Procreation.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Hennessy, Rosemary. “Queer Visibility in Commodity Culture.” Cultural Critique 29 (1994): 31–76.
   Google Scholar
• Hennessy, Rosemary. Profit and Pleasure: Sexual Identities in Late Capitalism. London: Routledge, 2002.
   Google Scholar
• Jackson, Emily. “Compensating Egg Donors.” In Gender, Agency, and Coercion: Thinking Gender in Transnational Times, edited by Sumi Madhok, Anne Phillips, and Kalpana Wilson, 181–94. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Jiménez, Marina. “‘Eggs Shouldn’t Go to the Highest Bidder:’ Canadian Women Who Want Fertility Treatments Must Now Rely on Unpaid Donors. They’re Proving Difficult to Find.” The Globe and Mail, June 4, 2005, F6.
   Google Scholar
• Leve, Michelle. “Reproductive Bodies and Bits: Exploring Dilemmas of Egg Donation Under Neoliberalism.” Studies in Gender and Sexuality 14, no. 4 (2013): 277–8.
   Google Scholar
• Lublin, Nancy. Pandora’s Box: Feminism Confronts Reproductive Technology. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 1998.
   Google Scholar
• Luxton, Meg. “Feminism as a Class Act: Working-Class Feminism and the Women’s Movement in Canada.” Labour 48 (2001): 63–88.
   Google Scholar
• Mamo, Laura. “Fertility Inc.” In Biomedicalization: Technoscience, Health, and Illness in the U.S., edited by Adele E. Clarke, Laura Mamo, Jennifer Ruth Fosket, Jennifer R. Fishman, and Janet K. Shim, 173–96. Durham and London, UK: Duke University Press, 2010.
   Google Scholar
• Mies, Maria. “Why Do We Need All This? A Call Against Genetic Engineering and Reproductive Technology.” In Made to Order: The Myth of Reproductive and Genetic Progress, edited by Patricia Spallone and Deborah Lynn Steinberg, 34–47. Toronto: Pergamon Press, 1987.
   Google Scholar
• Mitchell, Robert, and Catherine Waldby. “National Biobanks: Clinical Labor, Risk Production, and the Creation of Biovalue.” Science, Technology, & Human Values 35, no. 3 (2010): 330–55.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Montpetit, Éric. “Policy Networks, Federalism and Managerial Ideas: How ART Non-Decision in Canada Safeguards the Autonomy of the Medical Profession.” In Comparative Biomedical Policy: Governing Assisted Reproductive Technologies, edited by Ivar Bleiklie, Malcolm L. Goggin, and Christine Rothmayr, 64–81. London, UK and New York: Routledge, 2004.
   Google Scholar
• Motluk, Alison. “The Human Egg Trade: How Canada’s Fertility Laws Are Failing Donors, Doctors, and Parents.” The Walrus 7, no. 3 (2010): 30–7.
   Google Scholar
• Motluk, Alison. “Is Egg Donation Dangerous?” Maisonneuve 46 (2012): 26–33.
   Google Scholar
• Murphy, Julie. “Egg Farming and Women’s Future.” In Test Tube Women: What Future for Motherhood?” edited by Rita Arditti, Renate Duelli Klein, and Shelley Minden, 68–75. London, UK: Pandora Press, 1984.
   Google Scholar
• Ogbogu, Ubaka. “Reference Re Assisted Human Reproduction Act and the Future of Technology-Assisted Reproduction and Embryo Research in Canada.” Health Law Journal 19 (2011): 153–87.
   Google Scholar
• Oakley, Ann. “From Walking Wombs to Test-Tube Babies.” In Reproductive Technologies, edited by Stanworth M., 36–56. Cambridge: Polity Press, 1987.
   Google Scholar
• Ogilvie, Megan. “The Price of Eggs: Canada’s Fertility Laws Have Created a Black Market in Human Ova, Leaving Donors and Recipients Vulnerable,” Toronto Star, November 21, 2009, A1.
   Google Scholar
• Overall, Christine. Ethics and Human Reproduction: A Feminist Analysis. Boston: Allen & Unwin, 1987.
   Google Scholar
• Pande, Amrita. “Not an ‘Angel,’ Not a ‘Whore’: Surrogates as ‘Dirty’ Workers in India.” Indian Journal of Gender Studies 16 (2009), no. 2: 141–73.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pande, Amrita. “Transnational Commercial Surrogacy in India: Gifts for Global Sisters?” Reproductive Biomedicine Online 23, no. 5 (2011): 618–25.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pande, Amrita. Wombs in Labour: Transnational Commercial Surrogacy in India. New York: Columbia University Press, 2014.
   Google Scholar
• Picard, André. “Fertility Law Needs a Reset: The Assisted Human Reproduction Act and the Agency that Oversees It Are Based on Outmoded and Misguided Thinking.” The Globe and Mail, April 3, 2012, L5.
   Google Scholar
• Poff, Deborah C. “Reproductive Technology and Social Policy in Canada.” In The Future of Human Reproduction, edited by Christine Overall, 216–225. Toronto: Women’s Press, 1989.
   Google Scholar
• Porcu, Eleonora, Patrizia Ciotti, and Venturoli Stefano. Handbook of Human Oocyte Cryopreservation. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. “Repetitive Oocyte Donation: A Committee Opinion.” Fertility and Sterility 86, no. 1 (2006): S216–7.
   Google Scholar
• Raymond, Janice G. Women as Wombs: Reproductive Technologies and the Battle over Women’s Freedom. New York: HarperCollins, 1993.
   Google Scholar
• Rivera, Diego. Mechanized Motherhood. Watercolor on paper. Collection Museo Dolores Olmedo, Xochimilco, México, 1933.
   Google Scholar
• Rothman, Barbara Katz. “The Meanings of Choice in Reproductive Technology.” In Test-Tube Women: What Future for Motherhood?, edited by Rita Arditti, Renate Duelli Klein, and Shelley Minden, 23–33. London, UK: Pandora, 1984.
   Google Scholar
• Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies. Proceed with Care: Final Report of the Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies. Ottawa: Minister of Government Services Canada, 1993.
   Google Scholar
• Rubin, Gayle. “The Traffic in Women: Notes on the ‘Political Economy’ of Sex.” In Toward an Anthropology of Women, edited by Rayna R. Reiter, 157–210. New York: Monthly Review Press, 1975.
   Google Scholar
• Ruparelia, Rakhi. “Giving Away the ‘Gift of Life’: Surrogacy and the Canadian Assisted Human Reproduction Act.” Canadian Journal of Family Law 29, no. 3 (2014): 11–54.
   Google Scholar
• Sawicki, Jana. Disciplining Foucault: Feminism, Power, and the Body. New York: Routledge, 1991.
   Google Scholar
• Snow, Dave. “Explaining a Policy Failure: Jurisdictional Framing, Federalism, and Assisted Reproductive Technologies in Canada.” Canadian Public Policy 41, no. 2 (2016): 124–36.
   Google Scholar
• Stanworth, Michelle. “Reproductive Technologies and the Deconstruction of Motherhood.” In Reproductive Technologies: Gender, Motherhood and Medicine, edited by Michelle Stanworth, 10–36. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1987.
   Google Scholar
• Thompson, Charis. “Why We Should, in Fact, Pay for Egg Donation.” Regenerative Medicine 2, no. 2 (2007): 203–9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Trounson, Alan, John Leeton, Mandy Besanko, Carl Wood, and Angelo Conti. “Pregnancy Established in an Infertile Patient after Transfer of a Donated Embryo Fertilised in Vitro.” British Medical Journal (Clinical Research Ed.) 286, no. 6368 (1983): 835–38.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vandelac, Louise. “The Baird Commission: From ‘Access’ to ‘Reproductive Technologies’ to the ‘Excesses’ of Practitioners or the Art of Diversion and Relentless Pursuit.” In Misconceptions: The Social Construction of Choice and the New Reproductive and Genetic Technologies, vol. 1, edited by Gwynne Basen, Margrit Eichler, and Abby Lippman, 253–72. Hull: Voyageur Publishing, 1993.
   Google Scholar
• Vosko, Leah. “Rethinking Feminization: Gendered Precariousness in the Labour Market and the Crisis in Social Reproduction.” Lecture delivered for the Robarts Canada Research Chairholders Lecture Series, York University, Toronto, Ontario, April 11, 2002.
   Google Scholar
• Vosko, Leah. Managing the Margins: Gender, Citizenship, and the International Regulation of Precarious Employment. London, UK: Oxford University Press, 2010.
   Google Scholar
• Waldby, Catherine. “Oocyte Markets: Women’s Reproductive Work in Embryonic Stem Cell Research.” New Genetics and Society 27, no. 1 (2008): 19–31.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Waldby, Catherine, and Melinda Cooper. “The Biopolitics of Reproduction: Post-Fordist Biotechnology and Women’s Clinical Labour.” Australian Feminist Studies 23, no. 55 (2008): 57–73.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Young Harvison Alison, and Angela Wasunna. “Wrestling with the Limits of the Law: Regulating Reproductive Technologies.” Health Law Journal 6 (1998): 239–77.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar