Hostname: page-component-6bb9c88b65-wr9vw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-07-22T12:04:35.885Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Secrecy and Openness in Donor Insemination: A Sociological Comment on Daniels and Taylor

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 May 2016

Erica Haimes
Erica Haimes*
Affiliation:
University of Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom
Get access

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'

Information

Type
INTERNATIONAL ROUNDTABLE
Information
Politics and the Life Sciences , Volume 12 , Issue 2 , August 1993 , pp. 178 - 179
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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Bok, S. (1978). Lying. New York: Pantheon Books.Google ScholarPubMed
Bok, S. (1982). Secrets. New York: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
Brown, P. and Jordanova, L. (1982). “Oppressive Dichotomies: The Nature/Culture Debate.” In Whitelegg, E. (ed.), The Changing Experience of Women. Oxford: Martin Robertson.Google Scholar
Donovan, C. (1993). “Keeping It in the Family: An Analysis of Doctors' Decision-Making about Access in the Provision of Donor Insemination.” , .Google Scholar
Haimes, E. (1988). “Secrecy: What Can Artificial Reproduction Learn from Adoption?” International Journal of Law and the Family 2:46–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haimes, E. (1990a). “Family Connections: The Management of Biological Origins in the New Reproductive Technologies.” , .Google Scholar
Haimes, E. (1990b). “Recreating the Family? Policy Considerations of the New Reproductive Technologies.” In McNeil, M., Varcoe, I., and Yearley, S. (eds.) The New Reproductive Technologies. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Haimes, E. (1992). “Gamete Donation and the Social Management of Genetic Origins.” In Stacey, M. (ed.), Changing Human Reproduction. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Haimes, E. (1993a). “Issues of Gender in Gamete Donation.” Social Science and Medicine 36(1):85–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haimes, E. (1993b). “Theory and Methodology in the Analysis of the Policy Process: A Case Study of the Warnock Committee on Human Fertilisation and Embryology.” In Hill, M. (ed.), New Agendas in the Study of the Policy Process. Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf.Google Scholar
Haimes, E. and Timms, N. (1985). Adoption, Identity and Social Policy. Aldershot: Gower.Google Scholar
Strathern, M. (1992). Reproducing the Future: Anthropology, Kinship and the New Reproductive Technologies. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar