Assisted Reproductive Technology and the Proliferation of Parents: The More, the Merrier?

  • Greg YankeEmail author
Conference paper


The combination of advances in assisted reproductive technology and increased social acceptance of nontraditional families has raised issues regarding the legal recognition of multi-parent families. Sperm donors, egg donors, and surrogates have become increasingly involved in the reproductive process and occasionally play a continuing role in the resulting child’s life. When more complex family units subsequently fracture, courts are forced to resolve complicated parentage disputes.

Should there be limits to the recognition of multi-parent families? From a legal perspective, several American and Canadian jurisdictions now recognize that a child can have more than two parents. However, as a constitutional right to a multi-parent family structure is unlikely, individual states must determine whether nontraditional family structures should be legally recognized.

From an ethical perspective, although we should respect the autonomy of prospective parents in selecting the family structure that they deem appropriate, this must be subordinate to the principle of beneficence as it applies to the children of the relationship. Similarly, if we rely on a narrative analysis of the family, rather than traditional bioethical principlism, to inform our moral deliberations, we will reach a comparable conclusion that places the children at the center of the determination.


Assisted reproductive technology Multi-parent families Uniform Parentage Act Bioethics Family law Principlism Narrative ethics 


  1. A.A. v. B.B., [2007] 278 D.L.R. (4th) 519.Google Scholar
  2. Appleton SF. Parents by the numbers. Hofstra Law Rev. 2008;37(1):11–69.Google Scholar
  3. Bartlett KT. Rethinking parenthood as an exclusive status: the need for legal alternatives when the premise of the nuclear family has failed. Virginia Law Rev. 1984;70:879–963.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bouchard D. The three-parent decision: a case commentary on A.A. v. B.B. Saskatchewan Law Rev. 2007;70:459–78.Google Scholar
  5. Brody H. Stories of sickness. New Haven: Yale University Press; 2002.Google Scholar
  6. Buzzanca v. Buzzanca, 61 Cal.App.4th 1410, 72 Cal.Rptr.2d 280 (1998).Google Scholar
  7. California Family Code, §7612 (Deering, 2016).Google Scholar
  8. Charon R. Narrative medicine: honoring the stories of illness. New York: Oxford University Press; 2006.Google Scholar
  9. Children’s Law Reform Act (Ontario), R.S.O. 1990, c. C.12.Google Scholar
  10. Davis v. Beason, 133 U.S. 333 (1890).Google Scholar
  11. Family Law Act (British Columbia), S.B.C. 2011, C. 25, Part 3.Google Scholar
  12. Furrow BR, Greaney TL, Johnson SH, Jost TS, Schwartz RL. Bioethics: health care law and ethics. 7th ed. St. Paul: West Publishing; 2013.Google Scholar
  13. Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U. S. 629 (1968).Google Scholar
  14. Griswold v. Connecticut 381 U.S. at 479 (1965).Google Scholar
  15. Hunter K. Narrative, literature, and the clinical exercise of practical reason. J Med Philos. 1996;21(3):303–20.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. In re M.C. (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 197.Google Scholar
  17. Interpretation Act (British Columbia), R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 238, ss. 28(3).Google Scholar
  18. Jacob v. Shultz-Jacob, 923 A.2d 473 (2007) (PA. Super. Ct.).Google Scholar
  19. Kelly F. Nuclear norms or fluid families? Incorporating lesbian and gay parents and their children into Canadian family law. Can J Family Law. 2004;21:133–78.Google Scholar
  20. Kelly F. Multi-parent families under British Columbia’s new family law act: a challenge to the supremacy of the nuclear family or a method by which to preserve biological ties and opposite-sex parenting? UBC Law Rev. 2014;47:565–95.Google Scholar
  21. Kolata G. Birth of baby with three parents’ DNA marks success for banned technique. New York Times, 27 Sept; 2016. Available at:
  22. Livingston G. Fewer than half of U.S. kids today live in a ‘traditional’ family. Pew Research Center. 1998. Available at:
  23. Lotz M. The two-parent limitation in ART parentage: old-fashioned law for new-fashioned families. In: Cutas D, Chan S, editors. Families – beyond the nuclear ideal. New York: Bloomsbury; 2012. p. 34–48.Google Scholar
  24. McCarthy J. Principlism or narrative ethics: must we choose between them? J Med Ethics Med Humanit. 2003;29:65–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Miller RB. Narrative and casuistry: a response to John Arras. Indiana Law J. 1994;69(4):Article 6.Google Scholar
  26. Moore v. City of East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494 (1977).Google Scholar
  27. Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. ______ (2015).Google Scholar
  28. Reynolds v. U.S., 98 U.S. 145 (1878).Google Scholar
  29. Roe v. Patton, Case No. 2:15-cv-00253-DB (D. Utah 2015), Memorandum Decision and Order Granting Preliminary Injunction (Document 15).Google Scholar
  30. Sroka J. A mother yesterday, but not today: deficiencies of the uniform parentage act for non-biological parents in same-sex relationships. Valparaiso Univ Law Rev. 2013;47(2):137–84.Google Scholar
  31. UN General Assembly. Convention on the rights of the child, United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 1577; 1989.Google Scholar
  32. Walker MU. Keeping moral space open: new images of ethics consulting. Hastings Cent Rep. 1993;23(2):33–40.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U. S. 205 (1972).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Historical, Philosophical, and Religious StudiesArizona State UniversityTempeUSA

Personalised recommendations