Viability and abortion: lessons from ectogenesis?

References

• Haldane JBS. Daedalus: or, Science and the Future. Kegan Paul, London, UK (1924).
   Google Scholar
• Wellin S. Reproductive ectogenesis: the third era of human reproduction and some moral consequences. Sci. Eng. Ethics10(4), 615–626 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cannold L. Women, ectogenesis and ethical theory. In: Ectogenesis: Artificial Womb Technology and the Future of Human Reproduction. Gelfand S, Shook JR (Eds). Rodopi Publishers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; NY, USA, 47 (2006).
   Google Scholar
• Singer P, Wells D. The Reproduction Revolution: New Ways of Making Babies. Oxford University Press, Victoria, Australia (1984).
   Google Scholar
• Coleman S. The Ethics of Artificial Uteruses: Implications for Reproduction and Abortion. Ashgate Publishers, Aldershot, UK (2004).
   Google Scholar
• Ectogenesis: Artificial Womb Technology and the Future of Human Reproduction. Gelfand S, Shook JR (Eds). Rodopi Publishers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; NY, USA (2006).
   Google Scholar
• Smajdor A. The moral imperative for ectogenesis. Camb. Q. Healthc. Ethics.16, 336–345 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaczor C. Could artificial wombs end the abortion debate? Natl Cathol. Bioeth. Q.5(2), 283–301(2005).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Aristarkhova I. Ectogenesis and mother as machine. Body Society11(3), 43–59 (2005).
   Google Scholar
• Corea G. The Mother Machine: Reproductive Technologies from Artificial Insemination to Artificial Wombs. Harper and Row Publishers, NY, USA (1979).
   Google Scholar
• Brassington I. The glass womb. In: Reprogen-ethics and the Future of Gender. Simonstein F (Ed.). Springer Netherlands, Amsterdam, The Netherlands (2009).
   Google Scholar
• Jackson E. Degendering reproduction? Med. Law Rev.16(3), 346–368 (2008).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Newson A. From foetus to full term – without a mother’s touch. The Times, 30 August (2005).
   Google Scholar
• Rifkin J. The end of pregnancy. The Guardian, 17 January (2002).
   Google Scholar
• Rosen C. Why not artificial wombs? New Atlantis3, 67–76 (2003).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• House of Commons Science and Technology Committee. Scientific Developments Relating to the Abortion Act 1967, Volume 1 (Twelfth Report of Session 2006–2007), HC 1045-I. House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, London, UK (2007).
   Google Scholar
• Singer P, Wells D. Ectogenesis. In: Ectogenesis: Artificial Womb Technology and the Future of Human Reproduction. Gelfand S, Shook JR (Eds). Rodopi Publishers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; NY, USA, 10 (2006).
   Google Scholar
• Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990, s3(3).
   Google Scholar
• Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 (as amended by the HFE Act 2008).
   Google Scholar
• Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Human Fertilisation and Embryology.Cmnd 9314. Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, London, UK, paragraph 11.17 (1984).
   Google Scholar
• Paton v British Pregnancy Advisory Service Trustees, QB 276 (1979).
   Google Scholar
• Attorney – General’s Reference (No 3 of 1994) AC 245 (1998).
   Google Scholar
• Mason JK.The Troubled Pregnancy: Legal Wrongs and Rights in Reproduction. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 18 (2007).
   Google Scholar
• Nuffield Council on Bioethics. Critical Care Decisions in Foetal and Neonatal Medicine: Ethical Issues. Nuffield Council on Bioethics, London, UK, paragraph 5.1 (2006).
   Google Scholar
• Moorhead J. Against all odds. The Guardian, 21 February (2007).
   Google Scholar
• Most premature baby allowed home. BBC News, 21 February (2007).
   Google Scholar
• Leach CL, Greenspan JS, Rubenstein SD et al.Partial liquid ventilation with perflubron in premature infants with severe respiratory distress syndrome. N. Engl. J. Med.335, 761–767 (1996).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salon JE. Perflubron in infants with severe respiratory distress syndrome. N. Engl. J. Med.336, 660 (1997).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knight J. An out of body experience. Nature419(6903), 106–107 (2002).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Unno N, Kuwabara Y, Okai T. Development of an artificial placenta: survival of isolated goat fetuses for three weeks with umbilical arteriovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Artif. Organ17(12), 996–1003 (1993).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coleman S. The Ethics of Artificial Uteruses: Implications for Reproduction and Abortion. Ashgate Publishers, Aldershot, UK, 45 (2004).
   Google Scholar
• Brazier M. Regulating the reproduction business. Med. Law Rev.7, 166–193 (1999).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Alghrani A. Regulating the reproductive revolution: ectogenesis – a regulatory minefield? In: Law and Bioethics: Current legal Issuesn (Volume 11). Freeman M (Ed.). Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, 303–329 (2008).
   Google Scholar
• Keown J. Abortion, Doctors and the Law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK (1988).
   Google Scholar
• Jackson E. Medical Law Text and Materials. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, 595 (2006).
   Google Scholar
• Jackson E. Medical Law Text and Materials. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, 599 (2006).
   Google Scholar
• Department of Health. Statistical Bulletin 2008/1: Abortion Statistics, England and Wales: 2007. Department of Health, London, UK (2008).
   Google Scholar
• >Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Fetal Viability and Clinical Practice. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, London, UK (1985).
   Google Scholar
• Sheldon S. The law of abortion and the politics of medicalisation. In: Law and Body Politics: Regulating the Female Body. Bridgeman J, Millns S (Eds). Dartmouth Publishers, Aldershot, UK, 105–124 (1995).
   Google Scholar
• 1 QB 587 (1991).
   Google Scholar
• Abortion Act 1967, Section 1. UK (1967).
   Google Scholar
• Hemphill L. American abortion law applied to new reproductive technology. Jurimetrics32(3), 361–386 (1992).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Norrie KM. Abortion in Great Britain: one act, two laws. Crim. Law Rev.475–488 (1985).
   Google Scholar
• Roe v. Wade, 410 US 113 (1973).
   Google Scholar
• Murphy J. Is pregnancy necessary? In: Sex/Machine: Readings in Culture, Gender and Technology. Hopkins PD (Ed.). Indiana University Press, IN, USA, 195 (1998).
   Google Scholar
• O’Connor J. Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health. 462 US 416 at 456–458, Supreme Court of The United States, DC, USA (1983).
   Google Scholar
• Kennedy I, Grubb A. Medical Law: Text and Materials (3rd Edition). Butterworths, London, UK, 1422–1423 (1994).
   Google Scholar
• British Medical Association. Abortion Time Limits: a Briefing Paper from the BMA. (2005).
   Google Scholar
• British Medical Association. Abortion Time Limits: a Briefing Paper from the BMA. p20. (2005).
   Google Scholar
• Herring J. Medical Law and Ethics. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, 253 (2006).
   Google Scholar
• Mason JK. Medico–Legal Aspects of Reproduction and Parenthood. Dartmouth Publishing Company, Aldershot, UK, 108 (1990).
   Google Scholar
• Kirklin D. The role of medical imaging in the abortion debate. J. Med. Ethics30(5), 426 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thompson J. A defense of abortion. Philosophy Public Affairs1(1), 47–66 (1971).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Warren M. On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion in Today’s Moral Problems (2nd Edition). Wasserstorm R (Ed.). Macmillan Publishers, NY, USA, 136 (1979).
   Google Scholar
• Overall C. New reproductive technology: some implications for the abortion issue. In: Sex/Machine: Readings in Culture, Gender and Technology. Hopkins PD (Ed.). Indiana University Press, IN, USA, 204 (1998).
   Google Scholar
• Paton v. British Pregnancy Advisory Service Trustees, QB 276, 279 (1979).
   Google Scholar
• S v. McC; W v. W (1972) AC 24, Re T (Adult: Refusal of Medical Treatment) (1992) 4 All ER 649, CA, Re MB (An Adult: Medical Treatment) (1997) 2 FCR 541, St George’s Healthcare NHS Trust v. S (1999) Fam 26, (CA).
   Google Scholar
• 2 FCR 541, 558–561 (1997).
   Google Scholar
• Overall C. New reproductive technology: some implications for the abortion issue. In: Sex/Machine: Readings in Culture, Gender and Technology. Hopkins PD (Ed.). Indiana University Press, IN, USA, 208–209 (1998).
   Google Scholar
• Cannold L. Women, ectogenesis and ethical theory. J. Appl. Philos.12(1), 55–64 (1995).
   Google Scholar
• Dworkin R. Life’s Dominion: An Argument About Abortion, Euthanasia, and Individual Freedom. Knopf, NY, USA, 55 (1993).
   Google Scholar
• Jackson E. Regulating Reproduction, Law Technology and Autonomy. Hart Publishing, Oxford, UK, 114 (2001).
   Google Scholar
• James D. Ectogenesis: a reply to Singer and Wells. Bioethics1(1), 87 (1987).
   Google Scholar
• Re MB (An Adult: Medical Treatment) 2 FCR 541; 38 BMLR 175 (1997).
   Google Scholar
• Kennedy I. Commentary to Re MB (medical treatment). Med. Law Rev.5, 317 (1997).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 2 FCR 541, 561 (1997).
   Google Scholar
• St George’s Healthcare NHS Trust v S, 3 ALL ER 673 (1998).
   Google Scholar
• Davin J. Would artificial wombs produce more harm than good? Natl Cathol. Bioeth. Q.5(4), 657–658 (2005).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 55 Cr App R 280 (1971).
   Google Scholar
• Brazier M. Embryos’ rights: abortion and research. In: Medicine, Ethics and the Law. Freeman M (Ed.). Stevens & Sons, London, UK, 9–22 (1988).
   Google Scholar
• Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Fetal Awareness. Report of a Working Party. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Press, London, UK (1997).
   Google Scholar
• Son HJ. Artificial wombs, frozen embryos and abortion: reconciling viability’s doctrinal ambiguity. UCLA Womens Law J.14, 213 (2005).
   Google Scholar
• Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990, Section 37. UK (1990).
   Google Scholar