Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Published:
Medicine Studies

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The term “suffering” is used in its common sense, meaning the bearing of pain, sorrow or distress.

  2. The language of “right” is a misnomer. Strictly speaking, a “right” as such exists only in relation to a duty holder, for example, by virtue of contract. As for human “right”s, these have universal application regardless of personal economic resources, while the market is an arena of “privilege” for those with the ability to pay, from either personal or collective resources. Under present conditions, the use of repro-genetic technology is dependent on economic ability, and in many parts of the world, it is not accessible for most people. From a human rights perspective, the question is how to render the technologies universally accessible to those who essentially need them, and to prioritize them in relation to other much needed essential technologies, including safe child birth.

References

  • Abrams, F. 2006. The misery behind the baby trade. Daily Mail, 17 July 2006. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-396220/The-misery-baby-trade.html.

  • ASRM (American Society for Reproductive Medicine). 2007. Financial compensation of oocyte donors. Fertility and Sterility 88: 305–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ASRM (American Society for Reproductive Medicine). 2008. Ovarian tissue and oocyte preservation. Fertility and Sterility 90: S241–S246.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baran, A., and R. Pannor. 1993. Lethal secrecies: the psychology of donor insemination, problem and solution. Cambridge: Amistead Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benner, Patricia. 1997. A dialogue between virtue ethics and care ethics. Theoretical Medicine 18: 47–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Birman, Zviya, Eliezer, Witztum. 2010. To bear a child. Tel Aviv: Aryeh Nir Publishers (Hebrew).

  • Buchanan, A., et al. 2000. From chance to choice: Genetics and justice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carse, Alisa L. 1991. The voice of care: Implications for bioethical education. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 16: 5–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • CEDAW. 1979. Convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women. United Nations.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dickenson, Donna. 2007. Property in the body. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Fine, Michael, and Caroline Glendinning. 2005. Dependence, independence or interdependence? Revisiting the concepts of ‘care’ and ‘dependency’. Ageing and Society 25: 601–621.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franklin, Sarah, and Celia Roberts. 2006. Born and made. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilai-Ginor, Hannah. 2010. The desire for a baby: On the emotional price of infertility treatment. Accessed 25 Sept 2010. http://www.horuta.co.il/article03.html (Hebrew).

  • Gilligan, Carol. 1982. In a different voice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greil, Arthur L. 1997. Infertility and psychological distress: A critical review of the literature. Social Science and Medicine 45(11): 1679–1704.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Groenhout, Ruth. 1998. Care theory and the ideal of neutrality in public moral discourse. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 23(2): 170–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hart, H.L.A. 1963. Law, liberty and morality. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hudson, Nicky, et al. 2011. Cross-border reproductive care: A review of the literature. Reproductive Biomedicine Online 22(7): 673–685.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ikemoto, Lisa C. 2009. Reproductive tourism: Equality concerns in the global market for fertility services. Law and Inequality 27: 277–309.

    Google Scholar 

  • Israel IVF Regulations. 2010. Public health (Extra-Corporeal Fertilization) regulations (Amendment). Kovetz Takanot 6931: 51.

  • Jaggar, Alison M. 1999. Feminist ethics. In The blackwell guide to ethical theory, ed. Hugh LaFollette. Blackwell Publishing. http://www.scribd.com/doc/7455115/Alison-Jaggar-Feminist-Ethics.

  • Joint SOGC-CFAS Guideline. 2006. Pregnancy outcomes after assisted reproductive technology. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada 28(3): 220–233.

    Google Scholar 

  • Katz Rothman, Barbara. 2000. Recreating motherhood. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lloyd, Margaret. 2001. The politics of disability and feminism: Discord or synthesis? Sociology 35(3): 715–728.

    Google Scholar 

  • Motluk, Alison. 2010. The human egg trade. The walrus. Accessed 24 Sept 2010. http://www.walrusmagazine.com/articles/2010.04-health-the-human-egg-trade/.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noddings, Nel. 1984. Caring: A feminist approach to ethics and moral education. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parks, Jennifer. 2010. Care ethics and the global practice of commercial surrogacy. Bioethics 24(7): 333–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rapp, Rayna. 2000. Testing women, testing the fetus. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Robertson, John. 1996. Children of choice: Freedom and the new reproductive technologies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, Lois. 2010. IVF doctors to raffle human eggs. The Sunday Times. Accessed 24 Sept 2010. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article7061155.ece.

  • Sacks, Jonathan. 2002. The dignity of difference. London: Continuum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandel, Michael J. 2007. The case against perfection. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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).

  • Storrow, Richard F. 2006. Quests for conception: Fertility tourists, globalization and feminist legal theory. Hastings Law Journal 57: 295–330.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tronto, Joan C. 2010. Feminist ethics, care and the politics of immigration. In Ethics—gender—medicine: Questions about health in political reflection, vol. 6, ed. Waltraud Ernst, 165–185. Germany: International Women’s and Gender Studies in Lower Saxony.

  • Veatch, Robert. 1998. The place of care in ethical theory. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 23(2): 210–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whiteford, Linda M., and Lois Gonzalez. 1995. Stigma: The hidden burden of infertility. Social Science and Medicine 40(1): 27–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, Haifa University, 40 Shlomzion HaMalka Street, 62266, Tel Aviv, Israel

    Carmel Shalev

Authors
  1. Carmel Shalev
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Carmel Shalev.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Shalev, C. An Ethic of Care and Responsibility: Reflections on Third-Party Reproduction. Medicine Studies 3, 147–156 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12376-012-0074-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12376-012-0074-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation