Kent Law School

Critical perspectives research led teaching


 

profile image for Professor Sally Sheldon

Professor Sally Sheldon

Kent Law School

Professor of Medical Law and Ethics

 

Back to Staff index

Research

Sally Sheldon's research interests are primarily in health care law and ethics, and the legal regulation of gender. She has published widely in the area of medical ethics and law, including a book on abortion law ('Beyond Control: Medical Power and Abortion law', 1997) and a co-edited collection of essays on Feminist Perspectives on Health Care Law (1998). Together with Richard Collier of Newcastle Law School, she has also co-authored a socio-legal study of fatherhood ('Fragmenting Fatherhood', 2008) and co-edited 'Fathers' Rights activism and Law Reform (2007). Her current work centres on reproduction and the law.

Major research projects

  • Fatherhood: a Socio-Legal Study. 2004 – 2006 (ESRC, £123,000).
  • Key Concepts in Feminist Legal Theory. A series of workshops between Keele, Kent, Cornell and Emory, 2003-2008, with Professor Martha Fineman (Cornell/Emory) (British Academy, £15,000).
  • Revisiting the Activist/Academic Divide in Gender, Sexuality and Law. A series of workshops between Keele, Kent and Westminster, 2003-2005 (ESRC, £15,586).
  • ESRC Small Grant: Assessing Child Welfare under the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act: the New Law (RES-000-22-4291).  Co-Investigators: Jan Macvarish and Sally Sheldon.  Principal Investigator: Dr Ellie Lee, 2011-3 (£98,000). 

Some examples of Sally's media appearances are here.

Research Areas: Gender and Sexuality, Health Care Law and Ethics

back to top

 

Also view these in the Kent Academic Repository
Books
Articles

    pdf
    Horsey, Kirsty and Sheldon, Sally (2012) Still Hazy After All These Years: The Law Regulating Surrogacy. Medical Law Review, 20 (1). pp. 67-89. ISSN 0967-0742.

    Abstract

    In 1997, Margaret Brazier was asked by the then Government to chair a review of the laws regulating surrogacy. The subsequent Brazier Report made a number of recommendations, including the need for greater regulation and the tightening of ‘expenses’ payments. Fifteen years on, the limitations in the legal regulation of surrogacy have become increasingly clear. Yet, none of Brazier's recommendations have been adopted, despite the clear opportunity for revisiting the regulation of surrogacy offered during the passage of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act (2008). In this paper, we revisit the Brazier Report in the light of subsequent developments and assess to what extent its key findings remain salient. Brazier's recommendations will thus provide a jumping off point for a critical analysis of the current state of the law regarding surrogacy.

    pdf
    Sheldon, Sally (2012) The Abortion Act's paternalism belongs to the 1960s. The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077.

    Abstract

    Women, not doctors, should decide whether they need an abortion.

    pdf
    Sheldon, Sally (2012) Abortion for reason of sex: correcting some basic misunderstandings of the law. Abortion Review, 37. pp. 2. ISSN 0262-7299.

    pdf
    Sheldon, Sally (2012) Is it illegal to abort an unborn baby because of its sex? Not necessarily. The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077.

    Abstract

    The sting that showed clinics agreeing to requests for sex-selective abortion caused outrage. Yet it's far from clear that the practice is always illegal.

    pdf
    Sheldon, Sally (2011) Is it a harm to be born with different skin colour to your parents? Bionews, 616.

    Sheldon, Sally (2011) 'Only skin deep? The harm of being born a different colour to one's parents': A (a minor) and B (a minor) by C (their mother and next friend) v A Health and Social Services Trust [2010] NIQB 108; [2011] NICA 28. Medical Law Review, 19 (4). pp. 657-668. ISSN 0967-0742.

    McCandless, J. and Sheldon, Sally (2010) The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act (2008) and the Tenacity of the Sexual Family. Modern Law Review, 73 (2). pp. 175-207. ISSN 0026-7961.

    Sheldon, Sally and Sozou, P. and Hartshorne, G. (2010) ‘Consent agreements for cryopreserved embryos: the case for choice’. Journal of Medical Ethics. pp. 230-233. ISSN 0306-6800.

    McCandless, J and Sheldon, Sally (2010) "No Father Required"? The Welfare Assessment in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act (2008). Feminist Legal Studies, 18 (3). pp. 201-225. ISSN 0966-3622.

    Sheldon, Sally (2009) A missed opportunity to reform an outdated law (Guest Editorial). Clinical Ethics, 4. pp. 3-5. ISSN 1477-7509.

    Sheldon, Sally (2009) From “absent objects of blame” to “fathers who want to take responsibility”: reforming birth registration law’, invited contribution to a refereed special issue on fatherhood. Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law, 31 (4). pp. 373-389. ISSN 0964-9069.

    Sozou, P. and Sheldon, Sally and Hartshorne, G. (2009) Withdrawal of Consent by Sperm Donors. British Medical Journal, 339. ISSN 0959-535X.

    Sheldon, Sally (2007) Unmarried Fathers and British Citizenship: the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act (2002) and British Nationality (Proof of Paternity) Regulations (2006). Child and Family Law Quarterly, 19 (1). pp. 1-16. ISSN 1358-8184.

    Sheldon, Sally and Collier, Richard (2006) Unfamiliar Territory. The Guardian, Wednesday 1st November 2006. pp. 1-2.

    Sheldon, Sally (2005) Fragmenting Fatherhood: The Regulation of Reproductive Technologies. The Modern Law Review, 68 (4). pp. 523-533. ISSN 0026-7961.

    Abstract

    Reproductive technologies offer the potential to break down parenthood into a number of constituent parts. These disruptive possibilities mean that the regulation of reproductive technologies holds important potential for study, providing a significant resource that has been little analysed with regard to fatherhood. This study attempts to remedy that lacuna through consideration of a range of recent developments in this area of English law. It reaches two general conclusions. First, while the law regulating reproductive technologies attributes great importance to fatherhood, this is rooted primarily (though not exclusively) in concerns for the symbolic importance of fathers, rather than in more practical considerations such as ensuring financial provision or a second hands-on carer for a child. Secondly, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act (1990) contains a clear attempt to protect and entrench the role of the father as completing the nuclear family. However, recent developments suggest that this legal preference for the nuclear family is subject to clear emerging cracks.

    pdf
    Sheldon, Sally (2005) Reproductive Technologies and the Legal Determination of Fatherhood. Feminist Legal Studies, 13 (3). pp. 349-362. ISSN 0966-3622.

    Abstract

    In Re D is the most recent in a line of cases to have raised problems with the determination of legal fatherhood under s.28(3) of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act (1990). The judgment is interesting in particular as a demonstration of the growing currency of the idea that a child has a right to ‘genetic truth’ and for further evidencing a ‘fragmentation of fatherhood’.

    Sheldon, Sally (2005) Saviour Siblings and the Discretionary Power of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. Medical Law Review, 13 (3). pp. 403-411. ISSN 0967-0742.

    pdf
    Sheldon, Sally and Wilkinson, Stephen (2004) Hashmi and Whitaker: An Unjustifiable and Misguided Distinction? Medical Law Review, 12 (2). pp. 137-163. ISSN 0967-0742.

    Sheldon, Sally and Wilkinson, Stephen (2004) Should Selecting Saviour Siblings be Banned? Journal of Medical Ethics, 30 (6). pp. 533-537. ISSN 0306-6800.

    Abstract

    By using tissue typing in conjunction with preimplantation genetic diagnosis doctors are able to pick a human embryo for implantation which, if all goes well, will become a "saviour sibling", a brother or sister capable of donating life-saving tissue to an existing child. This paper addresses the question of whether this form of selection should be banned and concludes that it should not. Three main prohibitionist arguments are considered and found wanting: (a) the claim that saviour siblings would be treated as commodities; (b) a slippery slope argument, which suggests that this practice will lead to the creation of so-called "designer babies"; and (c) a child welfare argument, according to which saviour siblings will be physically and/or psychologically harmed.

    Sheldon, Sally (2004) Evans v Amicus Health Care: Revealing Cracks in the "Twin Pillars"? Child and Family Law Quarterly, 16. pp. 437-452. ISSN 1358-8184.

    pdf
    Sheldon, Sally (2004) Gender Equality and Reproductive Decision Making. Feminist Legal Studies, 12 (3). pp. 303-316. ISSN 0966-3622.

    Abstract

    In Evans, both the U.K. High Court and Court of Appeal upheld Howard Johnston’s right to refuse Natallie Evans access to the stored embryos which represented her only hope of having a child which was genetically her own. In this note, I focus on claims of gender (in)equality in the resolution of Evans. My argument is that such claims are often made all too easily, without full consideration of the problems of advancing them in the context of procreative decision-making, where men and women are inevitably differently situated. I conclude that although equality arguments are not wholly without value in this context, they need be used with extreme care. And, with due caution, I set out an equality argument of my own which was not made in Evans.

    Sheldon, Sally (2004) Breaking the Genetic Code. The Guardian, 20 October 2004. pp. 999-999.

    pdf
    Sheldon, Sally (2003) Unwilling Fathers and Abortion: Terminating Men's Child Support Obligations? The Modern Law Review, 66 (2). pp. 175-194. ISSN 0026-7961.

    Abstract

    There is broad agreement across the western industrialised world that men who father children outside of marriage share in an obligation to support their offspring financially. Against this consensus, some men's groups have claimed that if women are accorded control over the decision to continue or to terminate a pregnancy then it is unfair to hold genetic fathers financially liable for child support. This paper assesses the merits of this claim from a feminist perspective. Having considered a number of arguments, it suggests that the currently accepted grounding of child support liability (in voluntary creation of need) provides little scope for refuting the men's groups' argument. The paper then moves on to argue that voluntary creation of need is, however, inadequate as a basis for child support liability, and that the current analysis offers compelling grounds for preferring a collective model of support obligations.

    Sheldon, Sally (2002) "Sperm Bandits": Men as the New Victims of Reproductive Biology. Kvinnforsk Occasional Papers, n/a. pp. 111-132.

    pdf
    Sheldon, Sally and Wilkinson, Stephen (2001) Termination of Pregnancy for Reason of Fetal Disability: Are there Grounds for a Special Exception in Law? Medical Law Review, 9 (2). pp. 85-109. ISSN 0967-0742.

    pdf
    Sheldon, Sally (2001) 'Sperm Bandits', Birth Control Fraud and the Battle of the Sexes. Legal Studies, 21 (3). pp. 460-480. ISSN 1748-121X.

    Abstract

    This paper briefly reviews the US case law dealing with the issue of birth control fraud and speculates on the possibility of a similar action succeeding in the UK. It then focuses on newspaper reporting of one such case. A common media reading of this case, and one which can also be detected in some academic commentary of similar cases, is to contextualise it as part of an ongoing 'battle of the sexes', where historic poles of inequality have become reversed and women have gained unfair (legal) advantage in procreative matters. It is argued that such an understanding is flawed and misleading, serving to distract attention from the legal structuring of these kinds of disputes. The paper concludes that the operation of the law can here be better understood as seeking to support the nuclear family in a way which can impact negatively on both individual men and individual women. The birth control fraud cases invite us to rethink the way that parental obligations are imposed and to justify more rigorously the choices which we make in this regard.

    pdf
    Sheldon, Sally (2001) Unmarried Fathers and Parental Responsibility: a Case for Reform? Feminist Legal Studies, 9 (2). pp. 93-118. ISSN 0966-3622.

    Abstract

    “ Following a Consultation exercise conducted by the Lord Chancellor's Department, the British Government has announced its intention to amend the Children Act 1989 so that the unmarried father who jointly registers the birth with the mother will acquire parental responsibility automatically. In this paper, I draw on the responses made to the L.C.D. Consultation, in order critically to evaluate the arguments for and against reform. A poverty of relevant empirical research makes it impossible to reach a properly informed view on the positive or negative impacts of implementing the proposal. However, the principled arguments: that unmarried fathers and their children are subject to discrimination, or that it is unfair for men to pay child support, yet have no automatic rights with regard to their children, are ultimately unconvincing. I also attempt a more explicitly sociological exploration of the Consultation and reform process, focusing on what it can tell us about evolving social attitudes towards the statuses of 'father' and 'family' and how they should be valued and protected.

    pdf
    Sheldon, Sally and Wilkinson, Stephen (2001) "On the Sharpest Horns of Dilemma": Re A (Conjoined Twins). Medical Law Review, 9 (3). pp. 201-207. ISSN 0967-0742.

Total publications in KAR: 70 [See all in KAR]
Information obtained from the Kent Academic Repository. The University of Kent official repository of academic activity.
More information about the Kent Academic Repository
back to top

Teaching

Health Care Law and Ethics, at undergraduate and postgraduate levels.

Supervision

Sally is happy to supervise topics in the area of health care law and ethics, reproductive rights, and some aspects of the legal regulation of gender.

back to top

Editorial Work

  • Feminist Perspectives on Law Cavendish-Routledge book series, co-edited (with Anne Bottomley), 1998-2003.
  • Social and Legal Studies: an International Journal. Lead editor (2001-5), book reviews editor (1998 – 2001), editorial board member (1997-)Professional Societies
  • Socio-Legal Studies Association, Executive Committee Member (2000-2); and Ordinary Member (1998-).
  • Member of the Society of Legal Scholars (1997-).
  • Occasional Member, American Law and Society Association, Canadian Law and Society Association (1996 -).

External Appointments

  • BPAS: Research and Ethics Committee (Member, 2007-; Chair, 2009-); Clinical Governance Committee (2009 -); Board of Trustees (2010 -)
  • Advisor, ProChoice Forum
back to top

Back to Staff Index

Kent Law School - © University of Kent

The University of Kent, Canterbury, Kent, CT2 7NZ, T: +44 (0)1227 827636

Last Updated: 09/05/2013