INFERTILITY ANDASSISTED REPRODUCTION

ETHICAL ISSUES WITH FEW ANSWERS

INFERTILITY I• DISEASE

– PHYSICAL OR MENTAL CONDITIONS OF AN ORGANISM THAT RESULT IN DEVIATIONS FROM NORMAL SPECIES FUNCTION

– PHYSICAL OR MENTAL IMPAIRMENTS TO ACHIEVING THE GOALS PROPER TO THE HUMAN STATE

• VALUE-LADEN COMPONENT• RATIONAL, FREE AGENCY

• A RELATIVELY HIGH PRIORITY COMPARED TO OTHER DISEASE STATES

• TREATED, MODIFIED OR AMMELIORATED BY MEDICAL INTERVENTIONS

INFERTILITY II• DISABILITY

– LIKE DISEASE --- LIMITS FUNCTION– BROADENS THE TYPES OF

RESPONSES EMPLOYED– INSURANCE COVERAGE?– FEDERAL PROTECTION

• AID TO PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES

TOTAL OPPOSITION TO ASSISTED REPRODUCTION• DEGRADES PARENTHOOD• WEDGE ARGUMENT• CHILD AS MEANS TO PARENTS’ END• CHILDREN BECOME COMMODITIES• ANOTHER WAY TO DOMINATE WOMEN’S

BODIES– REINFORCES SEX ROLES

• RACIAL DISPARITY– AFRICAN AMERICAN WOMEN STEERED

AWAY FROM ASSISTED REPREDUCTION

ASSISTED REPRODUCTION ASAUTONOMOUS RIGHT• LEFT TO INDIVIDUAL DECISIONS

– LIMITED REGULATION BY THE STATE• CHILDREN NOT NECESSARILY TREATED

AS COMMODITIES• “RIGHT” TO PROCREATE [NON-

COITALLY]• INFORMED CONSENT• INCREASES REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM

ASSISTED REPRODUCTIONTHE MIDDLE GROUND• PROCREATIVE LIBERTY HAS SOME LIMITS

– EFFECT ON SOCIETAL RESOURCES– VALUE ATTACHED TO HUMAN LIFE

• BENEFICENT REGARD FOR INDIVIDUAL CHOICE• PROTECTION OF THE VULNERABLE

– THIRD PARTY PARTICIPANTS• CHILDREN VIEWED AS COMMODITIES• CONCERN FOR SOCIETAL FAIRNESS AND

DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE– BENEFITS ONLY TO THE ELITE

HARM TO CHILDREN• BEST INTERESTS OF CHILDREN

– WHAT KIND OF LIFE WILL THE CHILD HAVE?• RISKING DAMAGE TO OFFSPRING

– TORT OF “WRONGFUL LIFE”– INADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY FOR HEALTH– NO MINIMALLY DECENT OPPORTUNITY FOR

DEVELOPMENT• MYTH OF ASSUMING THAT “CHILDREN ARE

WAITING IN A WORLD OF NONEXISTENCE WHERE THEIR SITUATION IS LESS DESIRABLE THAN IT WOULD BE IF THEY WERE RELEASED INTO THIS WORLD.”