Talks by Dr Julie McCandless
Papers by Dr Julie McCandless
Social Science Research Network, Nov 15, 2016
Bloomsbury Academic eBooks, 2012
Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law, Mar 1, 2008
New Genetics and Society, May 24, 2013
This paper takes as its starting point the comparative parliamentary time spent discussing the we... more This paper takes as its starting point the comparative parliamentary time spent discussing the welfare of the child and parenthood provisions of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008. While the former commanded over 8 hours of debate – most of which was spent discussing the proposed removal of the words “the child's need for a father” from the legislation – the parenthood provisions generated approximately only one hour of debate. This seems curious, given that the parenthood provisions (which govern the attribution of legal parenthood following certain fertility treatments governed by the legislation) are likely to have much more of a “real life” effect, and given that subtle changes in the wording of the welfare provision from “need for a father” to “need for supportive parenting” are unlikely to make a great deal of difference to actual clinical practice. In contrast, extending legal parenthood to a second female parent from the moment of a child's birth has important symbolic as well as practical legal consequences for two women having a child together. This paper begins by setting this curious scene and explaining why it is problematic. The first part of the paper focusses on the reform of the welfare clause and will contextualize the extensive discussion of this clause in socio-political concerns about assisted reproduction, the role of men and masculinity in family life, and the role of genetics in underpinning these concerns. Against this backdrop, the second part of the paper then analyzes why so little attention was paid to the parenthood provisions, pointing to the “common sense” assumptions which typically shored up the discussions surrounding this part of the legislation. This part of the paper will also draw attention to a number of significant gender-based connotations in the parenthood provisions.
Feminist Legal Studies, Nov 9, 2005
Hart Publishing eBooks, Sep 12, 2014
Hart Publishing eBooks, Feb 9, 2017
Northern/Irish Feminist Judgments : Judges’ Troubles and the Gendered Politics of Identity
The case in this chapter is a clinical negligence claim against a fertility clinic, which careles... more The case in this chapter is a clinical negligence claim against a fertility clinic, which carelessly used the wrong donor sperm in a woman’s IVF treatment (A and B (by C, their mother and next friend) v A (Health and Social Services Trust) [2011] NICA 28). The consequences of this mistake were that the children born from the fertility treatment had different skin colour to the woman and her husband, as well as each other. The claim was from the children, as the clinic settled out-of-court with the parents. Marian Duggan’s commentary explains and problematizes the approach of the feminist judgment, as well as putting the broader identity issues signalled by the case in context while Julie McCandless’ subsequent feminist judgment deploys very different reasoning to the original court decisions, and in part reaches a different conclusion.
The Modern Law Review, 2013
New Genetics and Society, 2013
This paper takes as its starting point the comparative parliamentary time spent discussing the we... more This paper takes as its starting point the comparative parliamentary time spent discussing the welfare of the child and parenthood provisions of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008. While the former commanded over 8 hours of debate – most of which was spent discussing the proposed removal of the words “the child's need for a father” from the legislation – the parenthood provisions generated approximately only one hour of debate. This seems curious, given that the parenthood provisions (which govern the attribution of legal parenthood following certain fertility treatments governed by the legislation) are likely to have much more of a “real life” effect, and given that subtle changes in the wording of the welfare provision from “need for a father” to “need for supportive parenting” are unlikely to make a great deal of difference to actual clinical practice. In contrast, extending legal parenthood to a second female parent from the moment of a child's birth has important symbolic as well as practical legal consequences for two women having a child together. This paper begins by setting this curious scene and explaining why it is problematic. The first part of the paper focusses on the reform of the welfare clause and will contextualize the extensive discussion of this clause in socio-political concerns about assisted reproduction, the role of men and masculinity in family life, and the role of genetics in underpinning these concerns. Against this backdrop, the second part of the paper then analyzes why so little attention was paid to the parenthood provisions, pointing to the “common sense” assumptions which typically shored up the discussions surrounding this part of the legislation. This part of the paper will also draw attention to a number of significant gender-based connotations in the parenthood provisions.
Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law, 2008
Feminist Legal Studies, 2005
Bristol University Press eBooks, Mar 26, 2024
The Northern Ireland legal quarterly, 2003
In February of this year, the House of Lords passed judgment, in favour of the respondent, on the... more In February of this year, the House of Lords passed judgment, in favour of the respondent, on the sex discrimination case Shamoon v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. In December 1997, the appellant, Chief Inspector Shamoon, lodged an application with the Industrial Tribunal for Northern Ireland, alleging that she had been unlawfully discriminated against on the ground of her sex, contrary to article 3 of the Sex Discrimination (Northern Ireland) Order 1976. The House of Lords’ judgment, almost thirty years since the enactment of the legislation, highlights the still continuing statutory and evidential difficulties in proving an alleged case of direct discrimination, and the importance of understanding and satisfying the basic principles of the Order .
Uploads
Talks by Dr Julie McCandless
LINK:
https://soundcloud.com/user-661286661/episode-5-repealing-the-eighth-amendment-and-the-republic-of-irelands-referendum
Papers by Dr Julie McCandless
LINK:
https://soundcloud.com/user-661286661/episode-5-repealing-the-eighth-amendment-and-the-republic-of-irelands-referendum