However, how infertility is defined and publically constructed - i.e., in biological, physiological, psychological or social terms – determines the type of social actors who appear in the public arena to defend a more fair distribution of the common good which is health. One such example is the demands by same-sex female couples on public reproductive health policies.
Furthermore, there is the debate on policies of partially state-funded fertility treatments faced by vulnerable groups (particularly gay couples and chronically ill people), as well as demands for their recognition among the political communities. Both issues provide lay the ground for further studying of disputes related to ethical and socio-technical controversies, such as the access to Assisted Reproductive Technologies.
The current context of widespread financial and economic crisis, throughout Europe, is questioning and challenging the ability to maintain conventionalised social rights such as state subvention for fertility treatments and medication. This corresponds to the decline of the welfare state, particularly in the Portuguese context, in which the state provided health coverage public access to healthcare. Based on the two main principles that constitute the «imagined project of modernity» (Wagner, 1996) - freedom and discipline – I seek to address two possible potential dissonance s. Nowadays, these dissentions may occur between the autonomy in the construction of individual fertility projects, and the institutional constraints that limit the reproductive freedom of people. Building upon my post-doctoral research, I will approach this problem theoretically and through data analysis (such as reports from ethical committees, legislation and media articles).