Abstract

Can't Regulate, Won't Regulate? As the global trade in human eggs continues to expand with logarithmic momentum, it is frequently argued that we could not regulate it even if we wanted to. Not all commentators do want to, of course. Many view regulation as counterproductive: reports have suggested that FDA governance has had the perverse effect of increasing levels of reproductive tourism to Latin America. Most of the other chapters in this volume are broadly in favour of letting market forces take their course, with varying degrees of control. I will examine whether reproductive freedom and choice really are all-important. Before I begin that analysis, however, I need to clear away the argument that we cannot control black markets in human body parts, including eggs, even if we want to. This argument is common to commentators from many positions in the political spectrum. Some writers assert that “baby markets,” comprising egg sale, surrogacy, and paid adoption, are so firmly established that prohibiting or regulating them salves our collective conscience but amounts to no more than hypocritical pretense. Other commentators claim that the burgeoning demand for eggs simply makes even an honest attempt to ban markets unrealistic or imply that the natural and laudable desire for “procreative liberty” would inevitably drive couples to defy paternalistic legal bans. On any of these accounts, regulating global markets in human tissue is said to be a lost cause. I argue the opposite.