Oncofertility pp 173-180 | Cite as

Ovarian Tissue Cryopreservation and Bioethical Discourse

Chapter
Part of the Cancer Treatment and Research book series (CTAR, volume 156)

Abstract

As the chapters in this volume demonstrate, like other nascent medical technologies ovarian tissue cryopreservation (OTC) raises no earth-shatteringly new moral questions. Rather, it poses old moral questions in new ways, thus shedding light not only on our old answers but also on our old methods of reaching them. My task here is to point out the ways in which OTC forces us to embrace important changes of emphasis in bioethics discourse around reproduction, changes that were already burgeoning and are now being reinforced by the unequivocal demands of this particular technology. All but the last of these is specifically tied to discussions that have preoccupied philosophical and religious feminism; the last, as a logical consequence of the first four, connects indirectly.

Keywords

Expense Infertility Defend 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by the oncofertility consortium NIH 8UL1DE019587, 5RL1HD058296.

References

  1. 1.
    Stoyle J. For now we see through in vitro darkly; but then face to face: an alternative theological perspective on in vitro fertilization. Theol Sex. 2003; 9(2):210–29.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    McLeod C. Morally justifying oncofertility research. In: Woodruff TK, Zoloth L, Campo-Engelstein L, Rodriguez S, Eds. Oncofertility: reflections from the humanities and social sciences. New York: Springer; 2010.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Asch A. Ethics of oncofertility. In: Woodruff TK, Zoloth L, Campo-Engelstein L, Rodriguez S, Eds. Oncofertility: reflections from the humanities and social sciences. New York: Springer; 2010.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Traina C, Georges E, Inhorn M, Kahn S, Ryan MA. Compatible contradictions: religion and the naturalization of assisted reproduction. In: Lustig BA, Brody BA, McKenny GP, Eds. Altering nature, vol. 2, religion, biotechonology, and public policy. New York: Springer; 2008:15–85.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Petrapanagos A. Reproductive choice and egg freezing. In: Woodruff TK, Zoloth L, Campo-Engelstein L, Rodriguez S, Eds. Oncofertility: reflections from the humanities and social sciences. New York: Springer; 2010.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ross LJ. Understanding Reproductive Justice. SisterSong Women of Color Reproductive Health Collective May 2006. http://www.sistersong.net/publications_and_articles/Understanding_RJ.pdf. Accessed October 25, 2009.
  7. 7.
    Tuhus-Dubrow R. Designer babies and the pro-choice movement. Dissent. 2007, Summer:37–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Clayman M, Galvin K. Whose future is it? Ethical family decisionmaking in the oncofertility context. In: Woodruff TK, Zoloth L, Campo-Engelstein L, Rodriguez S, Eds. Oncofertility: reflections from the humanities and social sciences. New York: Springer; 2010.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Tronto JC. Moral boundaries: a political argument for an ethic of care. New York: Routledge; 1993.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gracia C. The ethics of oncofertility: a clinical perspective. In: Woodruff TK, Zoloth L, Campo-Engelstein L, Rodriguez S, Eds. Oncofertility: reflections from the humanities and social sciences. New York: Springer; 2010.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lauritzen P. Technology and wholeness: oncofertility and Catholic tradition. In: Woodruff TK, Zoloth L, Campo-Engelstein L, Rodriguez S, Eds. Oncofertility: reflections from the humanities and social sciences. New York: Springer; 2010.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Strathern M. After nature: English kinship in the late twentieth century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1992.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Strathern M. Reproducing the future: anthropology, kinship, and the new reproductive technologies. New York: Routledge; 1992.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Goold I, Savulescu J. In favour of freezing eggs for non-medical reasons. Bioethics. 2009; 23(1):47–58.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Nisker J, Baylis F, McLeod C. Choice in fertility preservation in girls and adolescent women with cancer. Cancer (Supplement). 2006; 107(7):1686–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Zoloth L, Backhus L, Woodruff T. Waiting to be born: the ethical implications of the generation of “NUBorn” and “NUAge” mice from pre-pubertal ovarian tissue. Am J Bioeth. 2008; 8(6):21–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fallat ME, Hutter J, et al. Preservation of fertility in pediatric and adolescent cancer patients with cancer. Pediatrics. 2008; 121:e1461–e69.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Religious StudiesNorthwestern UniversityEvanstonUSA

Personalised recommendations