Inclusion, exclusion: comparative public policy (France/USA) in access to assisted reproductive technology

Q1 Social Sciences
Jennifer Merchant
{"title":"Inclusion, exclusion: comparative public policy (France/USA) in access to assisted reproductive technology","authors":"Jennifer Merchant","doi":"10.1016/j.rbms.2020.09.004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>This article examines what French and American societies mean by the principle of personal autonomy/‘right to privacy’ and the concept of solidarity/‘the best interest of the society at large’. It will attempt to show how these two countries translate these concepts into different public policies, more specifically in the field of access to sexual and reproductive rights of women and men. In order to better highlight these differences, I observe what citizens actually experience on the ground, and in so doing, it becomes clear that each country does not fully meet the principles they purport to defend.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":37973,"journal":{"name":"Reproductive Biomedicine and Society Online","volume":"11 ","pages":"Pages 18-23"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.rbms.2020.09.004","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Reproductive Biomedicine and Society Online","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405661820300174","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

This article examines what French and American societies mean by the principle of personal autonomy/‘right to privacy’ and the concept of solidarity/‘the best interest of the society at large’. It will attempt to show how these two countries translate these concepts into different public policies, more specifically in the field of access to sexual and reproductive rights of women and men. In order to better highlight these differences, I observe what citizens actually experience on the ground, and in so doing, it becomes clear that each country does not fully meet the principles they purport to defend.

Abstract Image

包容与排斥:获得辅助生殖技术的比较公共政策(法国/美国)
本文考察了法国和美国社会对个人自主原则/“隐私权”和团结概念/“整个社会的最大利益”的理解。它将试图说明这两个国家如何将这些概念转化为不同的公共政策,更具体地说,是在男女享有性权利和生殖权利领域。为了更好地强调这些差异,我观察了公民在实地的实际经历,通过这样做,很明显,每个国家都没有完全实现他们声称要捍卫的原则。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Reproductive Biomedicine and Society Online
Reproductive Biomedicine and Society Online Social Sciences-Cultural Studies
CiteScore
5.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
23
审稿时长
7 weeks
期刊介绍: RBMS is a new journal dedicated to interdisciplinary discussion and debate of the rapidly expanding field of reproductive biomedicine, particularly all of its many societal and cultural implications. It is intended to bring to attention new research in the social sciences, arts and humanities on human reproduction, new reproductive technologies, and related areas such as human embryonic stem cell derivation. Its audience comprises researchers, clinicians, practitioners, policy makers, academics and patients.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信