Advertisement

Getting what you desire: the normative significance of genetic relatedness in parent–child relationships

  • Seppe SegersEmail author
  • Guido Pennings
  • Heidi Mertes
Scientific Contribution

Abstract

People who are involuntarily childless need to use assisted reproductive technologies if they want to have a genetically related child. Yet, from an ethical point of view it is unclear to what extent assistance to satisfy this specific desire should be warranted. We first show that the subjectively felt harm due to the inability to satisfy this reproductive desire does not in itself entail the normative conclusion that it has to be met. In response, we evaluate the alternative view according to which the satisfaction of this desire is regarded as a way to meet one’s presumed intermediate need for parenthood. This view presupposes that parenthood is one of those general categories of experiences and activities that contribute an irreplaceable value to people’s lives, but the central difficulty is to find those characteristics that mark out parenthood as an irreplaceable constituent of a valuable life. We go on to argue, however, that even if one assumes that parenthood is such an irreplaceable constituent that makes life more valuable, this does not necessarily entail a moral duty to satisfy the desire for genetic parenthood. We conclude that there is a pro tanto obligation to help people conceive a genetically related child (if this is what they prefer), but that this can be outweighed by other moral considerations, such as safety and justice concerns.

Keywords

Genetic parenthood Assisted reproduction Reproduction ethics Stem cell-derived gametes Need Desire 

Notes

Funding

This study was funded by the Agency for Innovation by Science and Technology in Flanders (IWT) (Project Number: 150042).

References

  1. Baylis, Françoise. 2017. Human nuclear genome transfer (so-called mitochondrial replacement): Clearing the underbrush. Bioethics 31: 7–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baylis, Françoise. 2018. ‘No’ to lesbian motherhood using human nuclear genome transfer. Journal of Medical Ethics.  https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2018-104860.Google Scholar
  3. Beauchamp, Tom. 2016. Principlism in bioethics. In Bioethical decision making and argumentation, eds. Pedro Serna, and José-Antonio Seoane, 1–16. Cham: Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar
  4. Braverman, Andrea M., and Lucy Frith. 2014. Relatedness in clinical practice. In Relatedness in assisted reproduction. Families, origins and identities, eds Tabitha Freeman Susanna Graham, and Fatemeh Ebtehaj Martin Richards, 129-143. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Brighouse, Harry, and Adam Swift. 2006. Parents’ rights and the value of the family. Ethics 117: 80–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brighouse, Harry, and Adam Swift. 2014a. Family values: the ethics of parent-child relationships. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brighouse, Harry, and Adam Swift. 2014b. The goods of parenting. In Family-making. Contemporary ethical challenges, eds. Françoise Baylis, and Carolyn Mcleod, 11–28. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brock, Gillian. 1998. Morally important needs. Philosophia 26: 165–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brown, Rebecca C. H., A. Wendy Rogers, A. Vikki Entwistle, and Siladitya Bhattacharya. 2016. Reframing the debate around state responses to infertility: Considering the harms of subfertility and involuntary childlessness. Public Health Ethics 9: 290–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Callahan, Daniel. 1973. Science: Limits and prohibitions. Hastings Center Report 3: 5–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Campagna, Norbert. 2008. Procreative needs and rights. In The contingent nature of life: Bioethics and limits of human existence, eds. Marcus Düwell, Christoph Rehmann-Sutter, and Dietmar Mieth, 109–117. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chadwick, Ruth. 1994. Having children: Introduction. In Ethics, reproduction and genetic control, ed. Ruth Chadwick, 3–43. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  13. Cohen, Joshua. 1989. Deliberation and democratic legitimacy. In The good polity. Normative analysis of the state, eds. Alan Hamlin, and Philip Pettit, 17–34. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  14. Coughlan, Carol, William Ledger, Qiong Wang, Fenghua Liu, Aygul Demirol, Timur Gurgan, Rachel Cutting, K. Ong, Hassan Sallam, and Tin Li. 2014. Recurrent implantation failure: Definition and management. Reproductive BioMedicine Online 28: 14–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Daniluk, Judith, and Joss Hurtig-Mitchell. 2003. Themes of hope and healing: Infertile couples’ experiences of adoption. Journal of Counseling & Development 81: 389–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. De Wispelaere, Jurgen, and Daniel Weinstock. 2012. Licensing parents to protect our children? Ethics and Social Welfare 6: 195–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. De Wispelaere, Jurgen, and Daniel Weinstock. 2014. State regulation and assisted reproduction. Balancing the interests of parents and children. In Family-making. Contemporary ethical challenges, eds. Françoise Baylis, and Carolyn Mcleod, 131–150. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Di Nucci, Ezio. 2016. IVF, same-sex couples and the value of biological ties. Journal of Medical Ethics 42: 784–787.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Doyal, Len, and Ian Gough. 1991. A theory of human need. London: MacMillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. ESHRE Task Force on Ethics and Law 14. 2008. Equity of access to assisted reproductive technology. Human Reproduction 23: 772–774.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Frankfurt, Harry. 1984. Necessity and desire. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 45: 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Freeman, Tabitha. 2014. Introduction. In Relatedness in assisted reproduction. Families, origins and identities, eds. Tabitha Freeman Susanna Graham, and Fatemeh Ebtehaj Martin Richards, 1–18. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gameiro, Sofia, and Amy Finnigan. 2017. Long-term adjustment to unmet parenthood goals following ART: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Human Reproduction Update 23: 322–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gameiro, Sofia, W. Alexandra, Eveline van den Belt-Dusebout, Didi Bleiker, Flora E. Braat, van Leeuwen, and Christianne M. Verhaak. 2014. Do children make you happier? Sustained child-wish and mental health in women 11–17 years after fertility treatment. Human Reproduction 29: 2238–2246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Golombok, Susan, Lucy Blake, Polly Casey, Gabriela Roman, and Vasanti Jadva. 2013. Children born through reproductive donation: a longitudinal study of psychological adjustment. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 54: 653–660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Griffiths, Danielle. 2016. The (re) production of the genetically related body in law, technology and culture: Mitochondria replacement therapy. Health Care Analysis 24: 196–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gurnham, David. 2012. Donor conception as a ‘dangerous supplement’ to the nuclear family. In Families-beyond the nuclear ideal, eds. Daniela Cutas, and Sarah Chan, 84–96. London: Bloomsbury Academic.Google Scholar
  28. Hansen, Thomas. 2012. Parenthood and happiness: A review of folk theories versus empirical evidence. Social Indicators Research 108: 29–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Haslanger, Sally. 2009. Family, ancestry and self: what is the moral significance of biological ties? Adoption and Culture 2: 91–122.Google Scholar
  30. Hinton, Lisa, and Tina Miller. 2013. Mapping men’s anticipations and experiences in the reproductive realm: (in)fertility journeys. Reproductive BioMedicine Online 27: 244–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kukla, Rebecca. 2017. Infertility, epistemic risk, and disease definitions. Synthese.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-017-1405-0.Google Scholar
  32. Lesch, Walter. 1998. Is the desire for a child too strong? Or is there a right to a child of one’s own?. In In vitro fertilisation in the 1990s. Towards a medical, social and ethical evaluation, eds Elisabeth Hildt, and Dietmar Mieth, 73–79. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing Limited.Google Scholar
  33. Lindemann Nelson, James. 2014. Special responsibilities of parents using technologically assisted reproduction. In Family-making. Contemporary ethical challenges, eds. Françoise Baylis, and Carolyn Mcleod, 185–197. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lotz, Mianna. 2016. Commentary on Nicola Williams and Stephen Wilkinson: ‘Should uterus transplants be publicly funded?’. Journal of Medical Ethics 42: 570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Luk, Janelle, Dorothy A. Greenfeld, and Emre Seli. 2010. Third party reproduction and the aging couple. Maturitas 66: 389–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. MacIntyre, Alasdair. 2016. Ethics in the conflicts of modernity: An essay on desire, practical reasoning, and narrative. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Manion, Jennifer. 2012. Gay and lesbian love and relationships. In The oxford encyclopedia of American social history, ed. Lynn Dumenil, 437–440. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  38. McCandless, Julie, and Sally Sheldon. 2014. Genetically challenged: the determination of legal parenthood in assisted reproduction. In Relatedness in Assisted Reproduction. Families, origins and identities, eds. Tabitha Freeman Susanna Graham, and Fatemeh Ebtehaj Martin Richards, 61–78. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. McTernan, Emily. 2015. Should fertility treatment be state funded? Journal of Applied Philosophy 32: 227–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Mertes, Heidi. 2014. Gamete derivation from stem cells: revisiting the concept of genetic parenthood. Journal of Medical Ethics 40: 744–747.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Miller, Sarah Clark. 2012. The ethics of need: Agency, dignity, and obligation. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  42. Pennings, Guido. 2008. A multicriteria approach to patient-friendly IVF. Expert Review of Obstetrics & Gynecology 3: 425–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Pennings, Guido. 2009. International evolution of legislation and guidelines in medically assisted reproduction. Reproductive Biomedicine Online 18 (Suppl 2): 15–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Peters, Kathleen, Debra Jackson, and Trudy Rudge. 2011. Surviving the adversity of childlessness: fostering resilience in couples. Contemporary Nurse 40: 130–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Petropanagos, Angel. 2017. Pronatalism, geneticism, and ART. International Journal of Feminist Approaches to Bioethics 10: 119–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Petropanagos, Angel, Alana Cattapan, Françoise Baylis, and Arthur Leader. 2015. Social egg freezing: risk, benefits and other considerations. Canadian Medical Association Journal 187: 666–669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Reader, Soran, and Gillian Brock. 2004. Needs, moral demands and moral theory. Utilitas 16: 251–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Rulli, Tina. 2014. Preferring a genetically-related child. Journal of Moral Philosophy 13: 669–698.Google Scholar
  49. Rulli, Tina. 2016. What is the value of three-parent IVF? Hastings Center Report 46: 38–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Scott, Rosamund. 2018. Reproductive health: Morals, margins and rights. The Modern Law Review 81: 422–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Segers, Seppe, Heidi Mertes, Guido de Wert, Wybo Dondorp, and Guido Pennings. 2017a. Balancing ethical pros and cons of stem cell derived gametes. Annals of Biomedical Engineering 45: 1620–1632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Segers, Seppe, Heidi Mertes, Guido Pennings, Guido de Wert, and Wybo Dondorp. 2017b. Using stem cell-derived gametes for same-sex reproduction: an alternative scenario. Journal of Medical Ethics 43: 688–691.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Simonstein, Frida. 2010. IVF policies with emphasis on Israeli practices. Health Policy 97: 202–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Singer, Peter, and Deane Wells. 1984. The reproduction revolution: New ways of making babies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  55. Thomson, Garrett. 1987. Needs. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  56. Uniacke, Suzanne. 1987. In vitro fertilization and the right to reproduce. Bioethics 1: 241–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. van der Burg, Simone, and Tsjalling Swierstra. 2013. Introduction: enhancing ethical reflection in the laboratory. How soft impacts require tough thinking. In Ethics on the laboratory floor, eds. Simone van der Burg, and Tsjalling Swierstra, 1–17. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan UK.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Velleman, David. 2005. Family history. Philosophical Papers 34: 357–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Walker, Margaret Urban. 2007. Moral understandings. A feminist study in ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  60. Watt, A. J. 1972. The intelligibility of wants. Mind 81: 553–561.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Bioethics Institute Ghent, Department of Philosophy and Moral SciencesGhent UniversityGhentBelgium

Personalised recommendations