Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics

, Volume 12, Issue 8, pp 543–551 | Cite as

A Philosopher looks at assisted reproduction

  • Bonnie Steinbock
Medical Ethics

Abstract

The article first examines the various objections to IVF: religious, health and safety, and feminist. It is argued that none of these objections provides good reasons for banning IVF, though certain controls and procedures to protect individuals from harm and exploitation may be appropriate. Next, the article critiques John Robertson's strong conception of procreative liberty, which entails a right to be a surrogate mother or serve as a sperm donor. Robertson's interpretation misconceives the nature and value of the right to reproduce. The right to reproduce is best interpreted as a right to have one's own children to rear. Where there is no intent or ability to rear, there is no fundamental moral right to reproduce. However, since assisted reproduction is used to enable individuals to have their own children to rear, it should be available to infertile individuals who cannot otherwise reproduce.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Robertson J: Children of Choice: Freedom and the New Reproductive Technologies. Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press, 1994, p 9Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith: Instruction on respect for human life in its origin and on the dignity of procreation: replies to certain questions of the day, February 22, 1987. Reprinted in Intervention and Reflection: Basic Issues in Medical Ethics, 4th ed, R Munson (ed). Belmont, CA, Wadsworth, 1992, pp 479–487Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Some Roman Catholic theologians agree. Criticizing the Church's blanket opposition to IVF, Richard McCormick says, “The most that can be argued is that a child should be born within a marriage from a loving act. Sexual intercourse is not the only loving act.” Munson,supra note 2, at 480.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    The term “pre-implantation embryo” or “pre-embryo” is often used to denote the product of conception from fertilization until implantation in the uterus, a stage lasting about 10 days. The word “pre-embryo” indicates both that implantation has not yet occurred and that the product of conception has not yet differentiated into the embryo proper, which will become the fetus, and the placenta. Although “pre-embryo” is the more precise term for the fertilized egg in the context of IVF, I will sometimes refer to the embryo. Nothing of moral significance rests on the terminology.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    For a full discussion of the issue, see my Life Before Birth: The Moral and Legal Status of Embryos and Fetuses. Oxford University Press, 1992, especially Chapters 1 and 2Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    See, for example, Warren MA: On the moral and legal status of abortion, The Monist (1973); 57; Tooley M: Abortion and Infanticide. Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1983; Feinberg J: Abortion.In Matters of Life and Death, 2nd ed, T Regan (ed). New York, Random House, 1986; Marquis D: Why abortion is immoral. J Philos 1989;86:183–202, at 186Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Marquis,supra note 6 at 186Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    See Harris J: The Value of Life: An Introduction to Medic Ethics. London, Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1985, pp 11–12Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    See Singer P, Dawson K: IVF technology and the argument from potential. Philos Public Affairs 1988;17:2 at 95Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    The Catholic Church distinguishes between medical intervention to remove the causes of infertility and the prescription of drugs to promote fertility, both of which it deems morally legitimate, and artificial fertilization and IVF, which it maintains are morally illicit.Supra note 2.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kass L: ‘Making babies’ revisited, Public Interest 1979, no. 54. Reprinted in Arras JD, Steinbock B: Ethical Issues in Modern Medicine, 4th ed. Mountain View, CA, Mayfield, 1995, pp 430-2Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Id. at 431-2Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    For an excellent summary, see The New York State Task Force on Life and the Law, Surrogate Parenting: Analysis and Recommendations for Public Policy, May 1988Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Robertson,supra note 1, at 122Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    For an argument that compensated surrogacy need not be babyselling, see my Surrogate motherhood as prenatal adoption.In Gostin L (ed). Surrogate Motherhood: Politics and Privacy, Bloomington and Indianapolis, Indiana University Press, 1990, pp 123–135Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Proceed with Care: Final Report of the Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies, Vol. 2, Nov 30, 1993, at 718Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies: Update, December 1993, at 8.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Proceed with Care,supra note 16, at 708Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Id. at 696. Mary Anne Warren expresses a similar concern in IVF and women's interests: an analysis of feminist concerns,Bioethics 1988,2:37–57, at 49Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    For a discussion of secrecy vs. disclosure of collaborative birth, see Robertson,supra note 1, Chapter 6Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Vines G: Shots in the dark for infertility, New Scientist 1993;13–14Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    According to Paul Lancaster, Director of the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, National Perinatal Statistics Unit at the University of Sydney. This unit has collected comprehensive statistics on IVF children since the late 1970s.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Robin P: How to Be a Successful Fertility Patient. New York, William Morrow, p 226Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Altman LK: Study uncovers link of cancer to birth drugs.New York Times, Sept. 22, 1994, A22, citing report published inThe New England Journal of Medicine. The study does not prove a causal link between fertility drugs and ovarian cancer, although it buttresses the existing data supporting such a link. The National Institutes of Health is paying for further research to determine which treatments are most risky and to identify the women most at risk.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Warren,supra note 19, at 38Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Robertson,supra note 1, at 114Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    The Fertility Clinic Success Rate and Certification Act of 1992 requires that each IVF program report annually to the Centers for Disease Control their pregnancy success rates as defined in the act.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Warren,supra note 19, at 39–40Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Sherwin S: Feminist ethics and in vitro fertilization.In Science, Morality, and Feminist Theory, M Haene, K Nielsen (eds). Calgary, Alberta, University of Calgary Press, 1987, pp 265–284. Reprinted in Beauchamp L, Walters L: eds., Contemporary Issues in Bioethics 4th ed. Belmont, CA, Wadsworth, pp 224–232, at 229Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Singer P: Creating embryos.In Ethical Issues at the Outset of Life, WB Weil, M Benjamin (eds). Cambridge, MA, Blackwell, 1987, pp 43–62. Reprinted in Arras JD, Steinbock B (eds). Ethical Issues in Modern Medicine, 4th ed. Mountain View, CA, Mayfield, 1995, at 438Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Sherwin,supra note 29,, at 229Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Warren,supra note 19, at 39Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Sherwin,supra note 29,, at 228Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    United States Congress, Office of Technology Assessment: Infertility: Medical and Social Choices. Washington DC, Government Printing Office, 1988Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Robertson,supra note 1, at 226Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Robertson,supra note 1, at 24Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Robertson,supra note 1, at 221Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Robertson,supra note 1, at 39Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Robertson,supra note 1, at 131Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Robertson,supra note 1, at 227 (emphasis added)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 153 (1973)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Scott ES: Sterilization of mentally retarded persons: reproductive rights and family privacy. Duke Law J 1986;806, at 828–829Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Robertson,supra note 1, at 73Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Robertson,supra note 1, at 76Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Robertson,supra note 1, at 117Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bonnie Steinbock
    • 1
  1. 1.University at Albany/SUNYAlbany

Personalised recommendations