Advertisement

Social Justice in New Reproductive Techniques

  • Rebecca Dresser

Abstract

A woman hoping to conceive and bear a child learns from her physician that she is infertile. She undergoes corrective surgery, but the procedure is unsuccessful.1 In vitro fertilization (IVF) offers this individual the opportunity to carry and deliver a child who would be genetically her own. Yet, she faces several obstacles to obtaining the procedure: a clinic waiting list of 3,000 patients2; approximate costs of $5,000–$7,500 for a 10%–20% chance of successful pregnancy3; complete or partial lack of insurance coverage for the service4; and the clinic’s eligibility requirement that she demonstrate her sincere interest in parenthood and her membership in a stable marriage.5

Keywords

Social Justice Embryo Transfer Supra Note Artificial Insemination Reproductive Technique 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Estimates of success rates for surgery to correct tubal blockage range from 20% to 50%. See, generally, Walters, L., Human in vitro fertilization: A review of the ethical literature, Hastings Cent. Rep. 9(4):23, 26 (1979).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kolata, G., In vitro fertilization goes commercial, Science 221:1160 (1983). The waiting period is shorter in some treatment programs. Address by Dr. Martin Quigley, Insights into Infertility Symposium, Houston TX (March 10, 1984) (two-to four-month waiting period at University of Texas Medical School at Houston).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Grobstein, C., Flower, M., and Mendeloff, J., External human fertilization: An evaluation of policy, Science 222:127–30 (1983)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 3a).
    Edwards, R., and Steptoe, P., Current status of in-vitro fertilisation and implantation of human embryos, Lancet 2:1265 (1983).Google Scholar
  5. 4.
    See Walters, L., Ethical aspects of surrogate embryo transfer, JAMA 250:2183, 2184 (1983). See also n. 89 and accompanying text infra.Google Scholar
  6. 5.
    See British Medical Association, Interim report on human in vitro fertilisation and embryo replacement and transfer, Brit. Med. J. 286:1594 (1983); Marsh, F., and Self, D., In vitro fertilization: Moving from theory to therapy, Hastings Cent. Rep. 10(3):5 (1980).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 6.
    Infertility Network, Houston TX (Information Sheet, March 1984).Google Scholar
  8. 7.
    Address by Dr. Patricia Mahlstedt, Insights into Infertility Symposium, supra note 2 (quoting from material prepared by Resolve of Central New York).Google Scholar
  9. 8.
    See Grobstein, supra note 3, at 130 (estimating yearly U.S. candidate pool for IVF at 70,000). It is estimated that one in six couples of childbearing age in the United States is infertile at any given time. Infertility Network, supra note 6.Google Scholar
  10. 9.
    See Aral, S., and Cates, W., The increasing concern with infertility, JAMA 250:2327, 2330 (1983).Google Scholar
  11. 10.
    See Jones, H., Variations on a theme, JAMA 250:2182 (1983); Grobstein, supra note 3, at 127, 129.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 11.
    See Jones, supra note 10; Walters, supra note 4; Grobstein, supra note 3, at 129; Robertson, J., Procreative liberty and the control of conception, pregnancy, and childbirth, Va. L. Rev. 69:405, 422 (1983)Google Scholar
  13. 11a).
    M., Buster, J., Cohen, S., Thorneycroft, I., Simon, J., Boyers, S., Marshall, J., Seed, R., Louw, J., and Seed, R., Nonsurgical ovum transfer as a treatment in infertile women, JAMA 251:1171 (1984).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 12.
    President’s Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research, Securing Access to Health Care ,1:4 (1983).Google Scholar
  15. 13.
    See Evans, R., Health care technology and the inevitability of resource allocation and rationing decisions, Part 2, JAMA 249:2208–9 (1983).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 14.
    Branson, R., Theories of justice and health care, in Encyclopedia of Bioethics (W. Reich, ed.), 630 (1978).Google Scholar
  17. 15.
    Feinberg, J., Justice, in Encyclopedia of Bioethics, supra note 14, at 802, 803.Google Scholar
  18. 16.
    Buchanan, A., Justice: A philosophical review, in Justice and Health Care (E. Shelp, ed.), 3, 4–6 (1981); Branson, supra note 14, at 631.Google Scholar
  19. 17.
    Buchanan, supra note 16, at 14–16; Feinberg, supra note 15, at 805.Google Scholar
  20. 18.
    Feinberg, supra note 15, at 805.Google Scholar
  21. 19.
    Buchanan, supra note 16, at 14–15.Google Scholar
  22. 20.
    See Evans, supra note 13, at 2208–9. See also Smith, P., Ethics and in-vitro fertilisation, Brit. Med. /. 284:1287 (1982) (analogizing resource allocation issues raised by these two interventions).Google Scholar
  23. 21.
    See, E.G., Daniels, N., Health-care needs and distributive justice, Phil. & Pub. Affairs 10:146, 161–2 (1981).Google Scholar
  24. 22.
    E.G., Daniels, N., A reply to some stern criticisms and a remark on health care rights, /. Med. & Phil. 8:363, 369 (1983).Google Scholar
  25. 23.
    See Branson, supra note 14, at 632.Google Scholar
  26. 24.
    Ibid. See also Buchanan, supra note 16, at 17.Google Scholar
  27. 25.
    Buchanan, supra note 16, at 17.Google Scholar
  28. 26.
  29. 27.
    Fried, C, Equality and rights in medical care, Hastings Cent. Rep. 6(1):29 (1976). See also Buchanan, A., The right to a decent minimum of health care, in 2 Securing Access to Health Care, supra note 12, at 207.Google Scholar
  30. 28.
    Fried, supra note 27, at 33.Google Scholar
  31. 29.
    See Branson, supra note 14, at 633.Google Scholar
  32. 30.
    See Buchanan, supra note 16, at 17–19; Branson, supra note 14, at 634–5.Google Scholar
  33. 31.
    Daniels, supra note 21, at 160–1.Google Scholar
  34. 32.
    Ibid. at 158.Google Scholar
  35. 33.
    Ibid, at 155.Google Scholar
  36. 34.
    Ibid, at 158.Google Scholar
  37. 35.
    Ibid, at 159.Google Scholar
  38. 36.
    Ibid, at 157.Google Scholar
  39. 37.
    See Stern, L., Opportunity and health care: Criticisms and suggestions, /. Med. & Phil. 8:339, 340 (1983).Google Scholar
  40. 38.
    See generally Branson, supra note 14, at 635–6; Veatch, R., What is a just health care delivery?, in Ethics and Health Policy (R. Veatch and R. Branson, eds.), 127–9 (1976).Google Scholar
  41. 39.
    See Branson, supra note 14, at 635.Google Scholar
  42. 40.
    See Veatch, supra note 38, at 150–1.Google Scholar
  43. 41.
    Buchanan, supra note 27, at 212.Google Scholar
  44. 42.
    E.G., Veatch, supra note 38, at 141–2.Google Scholar
  45. 43.
    Outka, G., Social justice and equal access to health care, in Ethics and Health Policy, supra note 38, at 79, 92.Google Scholar
  46. 44.
  47. 45.
    Veatch, supra note 38, at 141, 149.Google Scholar
  48. 46.
    Buchanan, supra note 27, at 212.Google Scholar
  49. 47.
    Daniels, supra note 22, at 363, 369.Google Scholar
  50. 48.
    E.G., Boorse, C, On the distinction between disease and illness, Phil. & Pub. Affairs 5:49 (1975).Google Scholar
  51. 49.
    E.G., Callahan, D., The WHO definition of health, Hastings Cent. Studies 1(3):77 (1973).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 50.
  53. 51.
    See, generally, Singer, P., and Wells, D., In vitro fertilisation: The major issues, /. Med. Ethics 9:192–3; Walters, supra note 1, at 26.Google Scholar
  54. 52.
    Kass, L., Babies by means of in vitro fertilization: Unethical experiments on the unborn?, N. Engl. J. Med. 285:1174, 1176(1971).Google Scholar
  55. 53.
    Ibid, at 1176–7. See also Kass, L., Making babies-The new biology and the old morality, Public Int. 26:18, 26 (1972).Google Scholar
  56. 54.
    See Ethics Advisory Board, Report and Conclusions: HEW Support of Research Involving Human In Vitro Fertilization and Embryo Transfer, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, 44 Fed. Reg. 35033 (June 18, 1979).Google Scholar
  57. 55.
    Hellegers, A., and McCormick, R., Unanswered questions on test tube life, America (August 19, 1978), 74, 77.Google Scholar
  58. 56.
    See, E.G., Gorovitz, S., Doctors Dilemmas ,pp. 176–7 (1982); Walters, supra note 1, at 26.Google Scholar
  59. 57.
    Grobstein, supra note 3, at 127.Google Scholar
  60. 58.
    Ibid, at 129.Google Scholar
  61. 59.
    See Robertson, supra note 11, at 428; Walters, supra note 1, at 39; Edwards, R., and Sharpe, D., Social values and research in human embryology, Nature 231:87 (1971).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 60.
    Securing Access to Health Care, supra note 12, at 36.Google Scholar
  63. 61.
    Hellegers and McCormick, supra note 55, at 78.Google Scholar
  64. 62.
  65. 63.
    Lappe, M., Justice and prenatal life, in Justice and Health Care, supra note 16, at 83, 92.Google Scholar
  66. 64.
    See Veatch, supra note 38, at 142 (adequate care defined by human norms of healthiness).Google Scholar
  67. 65.
    Thus, some would say at this stage that we have no greater right to IVF than to an artificial heart or a heart transplant. Annas, G., and Elias, S., In vitro fertilization and embryo transfer: Medicolegal aspects of a new technique to create a family, Fam. L. Q. 17:199, 212 (1983).Google Scholar
  68. 66.
    See Evans, supra note 13, Part 1, JAMA 249:2047, 2051 (1983).Google Scholar
  69. 67.
    See Aral and Cates, supra note 9, at 2330–1, noting that the generation now entering its reproductive years is the first to be accustomed to having total control over fertility.Google Scholar
  70. 68.
    See Evans, supra note 13, at 2211; Childress, J., Rationing of medical treatment, in Encyclopedia of Bioethics, supra note 14, at 1414, 1415. The University of Texas IVF program, for example, requires female patients to be capable of regular ovulation and male patients to have sperm meeting certain criteria. Address by Dr. Quigley, supra note 2.Google Scholar
  71. 69.
    Childress, supra note 68, at 1414, 1415.Google Scholar
  72. 70.
    British Medical Association, supra note 5, at 1594.Google Scholar
  73. 71.
    See Robertson, supra note 11, at 430 n. 67 (noting social and economic influences on the condition of infertility); Comment, New reproductive technologies: The legal problem and a solution, Tenn. L. Rev. 49:303, 310–11 (1982) (describing varieties of infertility).Google Scholar
  74. 72.
    Aral and Cates, supra note 9, at 2329.Google Scholar
  75. 73.
    Reilly, P., Genetics, Law, and Social Policy ,Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press (1977), 190–1.Google Scholar
  76. 74.
    Aral and Cates, supra note 9, at 2329–30.Google Scholar
  77. 75.
    Bermel, J. The birth of a feminist sperm bank: New social agendas for AID, Hastings Cent. Rep. 13(l):3–4 (1983).Google Scholar
  78. 75a).
    Bermel, J. The birth of a feminist sperm bank: New social agendas for AID, Hastings Cent. Rep. 13(l):3–4 (1983).Google Scholar
  79. 76.
    See Ethics Advisory Board, supra note 54, at 35052. Adopting a healthy white infant through a Houston adoption agency entails a wait of from 18 to 45 months and costs of $4,000-$15,000. Private adoptions can cost $30,000 and more; in addition they lack the legal protection conferred on agency adoption. Adoption agencies generally place children with adoptive parents of the same racial and ethnic backgrounds, although international adoption agencies will arrange for transracial and transethnic adoptions. The waiting period is greatly reduced if the adoptive parents will accept children over 9 years old or children with permanent handicapping conditions. Agencies vary in the eligibility criteria that adoptive parents must meet. Some require working women to leave their jobs for a certain period, most require a legal marriage that has lasted from two to five years, many require proof of infertility, and some require membership in a particular religion. Address by Lynn Waldman, M.S.W. and adoption agency employee, Insights into Infertility Symposium, supra note 2.Google Scholar
  80. 77.
    See, E.G., Ooms, T., and Steinfels, M., AID and the single welfare mother, Hastings Cent. Rep. 13(1):22, 23 (1983).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 78.
    See Childress, supra note 68, at 1415–7.Google Scholar
  82. 79.
    Ibid. See also Annas, G., Fathers anonymous: Beyond the best interests of the sperm donor, Fam. L. Q. 14(1): 6–7 (criticizing procedures for the selection of sperm donors).Google Scholar
  83. 80.
    See Fox, R., and Swazey, J., The Courage to Fail ,Chicago: University of Chicago Press (rev. ed. 1978), 226–65.Google Scholar
  84. 81.
    In a recent review, Grobstein and his colleagues found no IVF program in the United States that will perform the procedure for unmarried couples. Grobstein, supra note 3, at 132. See also Marsh and Self, supra note 5, at 5. A few physicians and clinics, however, will perform AID for single women. See Bermel, supra note 75; Curie-Cohen, M., Luttrell, L., and Shapiro, S., Current practice of artificial insemination by donor in the United States, N. Eng. J. Med. 300:585 (1979).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 82.
    See, generally, Robertson, supra note 11, at 418 and n. 36. As Samuel Gorovitz pointed out, one issue is whether the new reproductive techniques should be rationed on a model similar to the traditional adoption system, or whether its relationship to health care supports a less restrictive system. Gorovitz, supra note 56, at 100–06. Two authors have commented that IVF clinics have political reasons for 14. limiting services to married couples, for such a policy is more likely to encourage public acceptance of the procedure itself. Annas and Elias, supra note 65, at 211–12.Google Scholar
  86. 83.
    See Grobstein, supra note 3, at 131–2; Ethics Advisory Board, supra note 54, at 35057. But see Bustillo et al., supra note 11 (reporting the birth of an infant to an infertile woman following the transfer of an in vivo fertilized donated ovum).Google Scholar
  87. 84.
    See Robertson, J., Surrogate mothers: Not so novel after all, Hastings Cent. Rep. 13(5):28 (1983)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. 84a).
    Somerville, M., Birth technology, parenting and deviance, Int’l J. L. & Psychiatry 5:123 (1982).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 85.
    See Childress, supra note 68, at 1417.Google Scholar
  90. 86.
    Ibid, at 1416.Google Scholar
  91. 87.
    See Kolata, supra note 2.Google Scholar
  92. 88.
    Rosenblatt, R., Rationing normal health care: The hidden legal issues, Tex. L. Rev. 59:1401, 1403–04 (1981).Google Scholar
  93. 89.
    See Walters, supra note 4, at 2184; Kolata, supra note 2; Marsh and Self, supra note 5.Google Scholar
  94. 90.
    See Grobstein, supra note 3, at 128–9; Annas and Elias, supra note 65, at 206–07. But see Lorio, K., In vitro fertilization and embryo transfer: Fertile areas for litigation, Southwest. L. J. 35:973, 981–2 (1982) (discussing the potential risks to offspring).Google Scholar
  95. 91.
    See Walters, supra note 1, at 24–5.Google Scholar
  96. 92.
    See Robertson, supra note 11, at 414–7.Google Scholar
  97. 93.
    Ibid. at 427–32; Lorio, supra note 90, at 1006–08.Google Scholar
  98. 94.
    Robertson, supra note 11, at 433–6; Lorio, supra note 90, at 1008.Google Scholar
  99. 95.
    See, generally, Robertson, J., The scientist’s right to research: A constitutional analysis, So. Calif. L. Rev. 51:1203 (1977).Google Scholar
  100. 96.
    See Robertson, supra note 11, at 433–6; Annas and Elias, supra note 65, at 208–210; Katz, B., Legal implications and regulation of in vitro fertilization, in Genetics and the Law II (A. Milunsky and G. Annas, eds.), pp. 351, 361–2.Google Scholar
  101. 97.
    See Grobstein, supra note 3, at 130; Kolata, supra note 2, at 1160–1.Google Scholar
  102. 98.
    See Robertson, supra note 11, at 433–4.Google Scholar
  103. 99.
    The Norfolk Clinic encountered opposition at its certificate-of-need hearing, but the state issued the certificate. See Marsh and Self, supra note 5.Google Scholar
  104. 100.
    See Note, Surrogate mothers: The legal issues, Am. J. L. & Med. 7:323, 328–32.Google Scholar
  105. 101.
    See generally Robertson, supra note 84, at 32–3.Google Scholar
  106. 102.
    This risk could be addressed through careful screening procedures. See Robertson, supra note 11, at 460 n. 179; Walters, supra note 4, at 2184.Google Scholar
  107. 103.
    These practices have their critics, however. See, E.G., Annas, supra note 79, at 6–7 (criticizing current AID administration processes).Google Scholar
  108. 104.
    See Blumberg, Legal issues in nonsurgical human ovum transfer, JAMA 251:1178, 1179–80 (1984); Robertson, supra note 84, at 33. But see Annas and Elias, supra note 65, at 221 (supporting a payment ban because it discourages the disturbing view of children as commodities).Google Scholar
  109. 105.
    See Grobstein, supra note 3, at 131.Google Scholar
  110. 106.
    Ethics Advisory Board, supra note 54, at 35056.Google Scholar
  111. 107.
    See Grobstein, supra note 3, at 131. Current federal regulations prohibit federal funding until IVF research proposals are reviewed by the Ethics Advisory Board. 45 C.F.R. J46.204(d) (1983). For a summary and critique of these events, see Abramowitz, S., A stalemate on test-tube baby research, Hastings Cent. Rep. 14(1):5 (1984).Google Scholar
  112. 108.
    The federal government’s inaction also limits public oversight of private research and practice in this area. See Brinkley, Uncertain present for in vitro fertilization, N.Y. Times (Feb. 5, 1984), $4 at 20, col. 1; Grobstein, supra note 3, at 132; Ethics Advisory Board, supra note 54, at 35052.Google Scholar
  113. 109.
    See Grobstein, supra note 3, at 131. But see Annas and Elias, supra note 65, at 208 n. 41 (Boston’s district attorney has stated that, if all fertilized eggs are implanted in donor women, IVF would comply with the law).Google Scholar
  114. 110.
    See Blumstein, J., Rationing medical resources: A constitutional, legal, and policy analysis, Tex. L. Rev. 59:1345, 1378–82(1981).Google Scholar
  115. 111.
    See Walters, supra note 4, at 2184.Google Scholar
  116. 112.
    See Fox, M., Scientist quits NIH over fetal rules, Science 223:916 (1984), Ethics Advisory Board, supra note 54, at 35045–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. 113.
    Ibid, at 35045–6, 35052.Google Scholar
  118. 114.
    But see Ooms and Steinfels, supra note 77.Google Scholar
  119. 115.
    See 1 Securing Access to Health Care, supra note 12, at 160–7.Google Scholar
  120. 116.
    Ibid, at 167.Google Scholar
  121. 117.
    See Blumstein, supra note 110, at 1357.Google Scholar
  122. 118.
    See Robertson, supra note 11, at 427–36.Google Scholar
  123. 119.
    Ibid. at 417–20, 432–3; Lorio, supra note 90, at 1009–11.Google Scholar
  124. 120.
    But see Shapiro, M., and Spece, R., Bioethics and Law ,p. 530 (1981) (reporting a case settlement on the availability of AID to single women, in which a state university clinic agreed that marital status would no longer be used to determine eligibility).Google Scholar
  125. 121.
    See Ethics Advisory Board, supra note 54, at 35057 (the question of government funding must be settled in a larger context, in which political, scientific, economic, legal, and ethical material is considered).Google Scholar
  126. 122.
    See ibid, at 35053.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Aubrey Milunsky and George J. Annas 1985

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rebecca Dresser
    • 1
  1. 1.Center for Ethics, Medicine, and Public Issues, Baylor College of MedicineTexas Medical CenterHoustonUSA

Personalised recommendations