Medicine Studies

, Volume 3, Issue 3, pp 147–156 | Cite as

An Ethic of Care and Responsibility: Reflections on Third-Party Reproduction



The rapid development of assisted reproduction technologies for the treatment of infertility appears to empower women through expanding their individual choice, but it is also creating new forms of suffering for them and their collaborators, especially in the context of transnational third-party reproduction. This paper explores the possibility of framing the ethical discourse around third-party reproduction by bringing attention to concerns of altruistic empathy for women who collaborate in the reproductive process, in addition to those of individualistic choice. This would entail moving beyond an ethic of liberty that is based on self-interest and the language of rights, to an alternative ethic of care that is based on self-restraint and the language of responsibilities. An ethic of care and responsibility would cultivate the empathetic self-reflection of the autonomous actor in relation to those others who are part of the enterprise of bringing a child into the world.


Assisted reproduction technologies (ART) Third-party reproduction Ethic of care Responsibility 


  1. Abrams, F. 2006. The misery behind the baby trade. Daily Mail, 17 July 2006.
  2. ASRM (American Society for Reproductive Medicine). 2007. Financial compensation of oocyte donors. Fertility and Sterility 88: 305–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. ASRM (American Society for Reproductive Medicine). 2008. Ovarian tissue and oocyte preservation. Fertility and Sterility 90: S241–S246.Google Scholar
  4. Baran, A., and R. Pannor. 1993. Lethal secrecies: the psychology of donor insemination, problem and solution. Cambridge: Amistead Press.Google Scholar
  5. Benner, Patricia. 1997. A dialogue between virtue ethics and care ethics. Theoretical Medicine 18: 47–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Birman, Zviya, Eliezer, Witztum. 2010. To bear a child. Tel Aviv: Aryeh Nir Publishers (Hebrew).Google Scholar
  7. Buchanan, A., et al. 2000. From chance to choice: Genetics and justice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Carse, Alisa L. 1991. The voice of care: Implications for bioethical education. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 16: 5–28.Google Scholar
  9. CEDAW. 1979. Convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women. United Nations.Google Scholar
  10. Cwikel, Julie, Y. Gidron, and E. Sheiner. 2004. Psychological Interactions with Infertility among women. European Journal of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Biology 117(2): 126–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dickenson, Donna. 2007. Property in the body. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fine, Michael, and Caroline Glendinning. 2005. Dependence, independence or interdependence? Revisiting the concepts of ‘care’ and ‘dependency’. Ageing and Society 25: 601–621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Franklin, Sarah, and Celia Roberts. 2006. Born and made. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Gilai-Ginor, Hannah. 2010. The desire for a baby: On the emotional price of infertility treatment. Accessed 25 Sept 2010. (Hebrew).
  15. Gilligan, Carol. 1982. In a different voice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Greil, Arthur L. 1997. Infertility and psychological distress: A critical review of the literature. Social Science and Medicine 45(11): 1679–1704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Greil, Arthur L., Kathleen Slauson-Blevins, and Julia McQuillan. 2010. The experience of infertility: A review of recent literature. Sociology of Health & Illness 32(1): 140–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Groenhout, Ruth. 1998. Care theory and the ideal of neutrality in public moral discourse. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 23(2): 170–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hämmerli, Katja, Hansjörg Znoj, and Jürgen Barth. 2009. The efficacy of psychological interventions for infertile patients: A meta-analysis examining mental health and pregnancy rate. Human Reproduction Update 15(3): 279–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hart, H.L.A. 1963. Law, liberty and morality. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Hudson, Nicky, et al. 2011. Cross-border reproductive care: A review of the literature. Reproductive Biomedicine Online 22(7): 673–685.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ikemoto, Lisa C. 2009. Reproductive tourism: Equality concerns in the global market for fertility services. Law and Inequality 27: 277–309.Google Scholar
  23. Israel IVF Regulations. 2010. Public health (Extra-Corporeal Fertilization) regulations (Amendment). Kovetz Takanot 6931: 51.Google Scholar
  24. Jaggar, Alison M. 1999. Feminist ethics. In The blackwell guide to ethical theory, ed. Hugh LaFollette. Blackwell Publishing.
  25. Joint SOGC-CFAS Guideline. 2006. Pregnancy outcomes after assisted reproductive technology. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada 28(3): 220–233.Google Scholar
  26. Katz Rothman, Barbara. 2000. Recreating motherhood. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Kuhse, Helga, Peter Singer, and Maurice Rickard. 1998. Reconciling impartial morality and a feminist ethic of care. The Journal of Value Inquiry 32: 451–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lloyd, Margaret. 2001. The politics of disability and feminism: Discord or synthesis? Sociology 35(3): 715–728.Google Scholar
  29. Motluk, Alison. 2010. The human egg trade. The walrus. Accessed 24 Sept 2010.
  30. Nahman, Mical. 2008. Nodes of desire: Romanian egg sellers, ‘dignity’ and feminist alliances in transnational ova exchanges. European Journal of Women’s Studies 15(2): 5–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Noddings, Nel. 1984. Caring: A feminist approach to ethics and moral education. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  32. Ombelet, Willem, et al. 2006. Perinatal outcome of 12021 singleton and 3108 twin births after non-IVF assisted reproduction: A cohort study. Human Reproduction 21(4): 1025–1032.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Parks, Jennifer. 2010. Care ethics and the global practice of commercial surrogacy. Bioethics 24(7): 333–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rapp, Rayna. 2000. Testing women, testing the fetus. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  35. Remennick, Larissa. 2006. The quest for the perfect baby: Why do Israeli women seek prenatal genetic testing. Sociology of Health & Illness 28(1): 21–53.Google Scholar
  36. Robertson, John. 1996. Children of choice: Freedom and the new reproductive technologies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Rogers, Lois. 2010. IVF doctors to raffle human eggs. The Sunday Times. Accessed 24 Sept 2010.
  38. Sacks, Jonathan. 2002. The dignity of difference. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  39. Sandel, Michael J. 2007. The case against perfection. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.Google Scholar
  40. Shalev, Carmel, Gabriele, Werner-Felmayer. 2012. Patterns of globalized reproduction: Egg cells regulation in Israel and Austria. Israel Journal of Health Policy Research 1 (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  41. Storrow, Richard F. 2006. Quests for conception: Fertility tourists, globalization and feminist legal theory. Hastings Law Journal 57: 295–330.Google Scholar
  42. Tong, Rosemarie. 1998. The ethics of care: A feminist virtue ethics of care for healthcare practitioners. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 23(2): 131–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Tronto, Joan C. 2010. Feminist ethics, care and the politics of immigration. In Ethicsgendermedicine: Questions about health in political reflection, vol. 6, ed. Waltraud Ernst, 165–185. Germany: International Women’s and Gender Studies in Lower Saxony.Google Scholar
  44. Veatch, Robert. 1998. The place of care in ethical theory. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 23(2): 210–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Verhaak, C.M., et al. 2007. Women’s emotional adjustment to IVF: A systematic review of 25 years of research. Human Reproduction Update 13: 27–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Whiteford, Linda M., and Lois Gonzalez. 1995. Stigma: The hidden burden of infertility. Social Science and Medicine 40(1): 27–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of LawHaifa UniversityTel AvivIsrael

Personalised recommendations