In this paper I will discuss three areas in which advances in human reproductive technology could occur, their uses and abuses, and their effects on society. First is the potential to drastically increase the success rate and availability of in vitro fertilization and embryo freezing. Second is the ability to perform biopsies on embryos prior to the onset of pregnancy. Finally, I will consider the adding or altering of genes in embryos, commonly referred to as genetic engineering.As new (...) class='Hi'>reproductive technologies pass from experimental models into the potential for medical utilization, I believe that it will be important for lawmakers everywhere to avoid the impulse to outlaw procedures that a society believes to be unnatural at a first glance. Rather, I would hope that they can respond thoughtfully with legislation that serves two purposes — to protect the rights of couples to overcome infertility or to reduce the risk of genetic disease in their children-to-be, and more importantly, to protect children-to-be from the abuses that could result from some of the practices that I will discuss. (shrink)

In this article, I will analyse the conduct of the Brazilian legislative process regarding new reproductive technologies, mainly the moral assumptions of three categories that are essential to the debate: the status of the child generated by these techniques; the number of embryos transferred in each cycle (as well as foetal reduction); and the issue of women’s eligibility for such techniques. The analysis will be a sociological study of the Brazilian legislative debate, using feminist perspectives in ethics as the (...) theoretical reference. The focus will be the bills in progress in the Brazilian National Congress, the public and official declarations of legislators involved in the issue and the regulation of the medical class, which has influenced the legislative process. Aside from the analysis of the legislative process, I include a section on the justification of these bills, since that is where the legislator exposes what he/she believes is the moral support for the bill. (shrink)

Objections that the New Reproductive Technologies pose temptations to "play God" are common. This essay examines three versions of the objection: 1) these technologies "usurp God's dominion in reproduction"; 2) they permit us to "make" our offspring; and 3) they involve us in a denial of human finitude. None proves to generate a decisive case against the New Reproductive Technologies; each requires some further argument to be persuasive. Nonetheless, warnings not to "play God" are shown to have an (...) important parenetic function in the debate over medically-assisted reproduction, occasioning needed reflection on the meaning of creatureliness, finitude and responsible co-creation in the context of new forms of reproduction. Keywords: medically-assisted reproduction, New Reproductive Technologies, divine authority, "playing God." CiteULike Connotea Del.icio.us What's this? (shrink)

In this article, I will analyse the conduct of the Brazilian legislative process regarding new reproductive technologies, mainly the moral assumptions of three categories that are essential to the debate: the status of the child generated by these techniques; the number of embryos transferred in each cycle ; and the issue of women’s eligibility for such techniques. The analysis will be a sociological study of the Brazilian legislative debate, using feminist perspectives in ethics as the theoretical reference. The focus (...) will be the bills in progress in the Brazilian National Congress, the public and official declarations of legislators involved in the issue and the regulation of the medical class, which has influenced the legislative process. Aside from the analysis of the legislative process, I include a section on the justification of these bills, since that is where the legislator exposes what he/she believes is the moral support for the bill. (shrink)

A short article examining the problems of the fertility industry, commodifying human life and allowing unaccountable third parties to create children in ways that undermine their identity by way of donor conception, human cloning and artificial reproductive techniques.

New reproductive technology permits a distinction between two different aspects of abortion: (1) the (premature) emptying of the uterus (the expulsion of the fetus) and (2) causing the death of the fetus. The paper argues that the fetus has not right to occupancy of its mother's (or any other woman's) uterus, And that the mother (or anyone else) has not right to kill the fetus. Some implications of these claims are discussed.

In various—often even opposing—ways, embodiment has always been crucial for feminism. Carla Lam’s important book addresses the fact that new reproductive technologies increasingly disembody reproduction for women; simply put, these technologies render women’s experience more akin to that of men. Birth becomes not only technologically mediated, but reproduction can now be taken out of the female body. This has both practical and theoretical implications. It is critical, therefore, that feminists both reflect upon the ramifications of NRTs and, at the (...) same time, consider how NRTs influence our understandings and experiences of reproduction—and of embodiment. Embodiment is changing, not just at the... (shrink)

This study examines recent French bioethics laws governing the uses of new reproductive and genetic technologies —including in-vitro fertilization, surrogate motherhood, prenatal diagnostics, sex selection, and cloning—in light of feminist claims to women’s rights, especially a woman’s right to reproductive freedom. To this end, the study explores two interrelated questions: First, to what extent have French feminists supported NRGT development and treatment? Second, to what extent do French national bioethics debates, laws, and policies reflect feminist reactions to NRGTs? (...) The investigation of these questions is informed by recent theories of state feminism that show how national policy debates are gendered by particular sets of feminist ideas, and how policy choices resulting from these debates turn some of these ideas into law. Some of the most pressing feminist concerns in this area include women’s loss of control over their bodies and fertility, women’s exploitation and commercialization of their bodies, and women’s health risks from NRGTs. The analysis of pronouncements by French feminist writers, researchers, and policy-makers reveals a multiplicity of feminist stances on NRGTs, showing keenly how feminists contest what constitutes effective feminist public policies to illuminate the fact that these policies are subject to shifting political contestations, rather than the reflection of a fixed set of feminist ideas. While contemporary French feminists grapple with the potential merits and dangers of NRGTS, the study shows that feminists generally seem to support NRGTs, as long as French law protects women’s reproductive autonomy. Seen in this light, France’s strong sense of the right to procreate through facilitation of access to NRGTs is not a contradiction of France’s strong social and legal support for women’s reproductive freedom, but rather enables French lawmakers to regulate NRGTs more effectively. (shrink)

This study examines recent French bioethics laws governing the uses of new reproductive and genetic technologies (NRGTs)—including in-vitro fertilization, surrogate motherhood, prenatal diagnostics, sex selection, and cloning—in light of feminist claims to women's rights, especially a woman's right to reproductive freedom. To this end, the study explores two interrelated questions: First, to what extent have French feminists supported NRGT development and treatment? Second, to what extent do French national bioethics debates, laws, and policies reflect feminist reactions to NRGTs? (...) The investigation of these questions is informed by recent theories of state feminism that show how national policy debates are gendered by particular sets of feminist ideas, and how policy choices resulting from these debates turn some of these ideas into law (McBride Stetson and Mazur 1995). Some of the most pressing feminist concerns in this area include women's loss of control over their bodies and fertility, women's exploitation and commercialization of their bodies, and women's health risks from NRGTs. The analysis of pronouncements by French feminist writers, researchers, and policy-makers reveals a multiplicity of feminist stances on NRGTs, showing keenly how feminists contest what constitutes effective feminist public policies to illuminate the fact that these policies are subject to shifting political contestations, rather than the reflection of a fixed set of feminist ideas. While contemporary French feminists grapple with the potential merits and dangers of NRGTS, the study shows that feminists generally seem to support NRGTs, as long as French law protects women's reproductive autonomy. Seen in this light, France's strong sense of the right to procreate through facilitation of access to NRGTs is not a contradiction of France's strong social and legal support for women's reproductive freedom, but rather enables French lawmakers to regulate NRGTs more effectively. (shrink)

If few authors have paid much attention to the feminine concerns in new reproductive technologies, actually it is mainly some feminist authors, who, to a great extent, have allowed these concerns to enter into public debate. On the other hand, the preoccupation about women's interests and points of view is a feature in common of all feminist approaches, independently of their other philosophical concepts. Nevertheless, another feature of feminist discourses is their plurality and heterogeneity. So, we have not find (...) back answers to the questions we have analysed in this paper, because there is not only one answer. This is not an inconvenience but an incentive to continue the democratic debate within the framework of plurality and tolerance. We must incorporate to this debate the, often forgotten, women's own interests, and a critical view of the underlying assumptions and biases. These two points of view are common to the majority of feminist approaches, and should be seriously considered as worthy to be incorporated to our discourses when debating the issues linked to the new reproductive technologies. (shrink)

Science is revolutionizing human reproduction. New techniques are already with us, such as artificial insemination, the freezing of sperm, in vitro fertilization and the use of surrogate mothers. Artificial wombs are clearly on the horizon.

Demands calling for reparations for historical injustices—injustices whose original victims and perpetrators are now dead—constitute an important component of contemporary struggles for social and transnational justice. Reparations are only one way in which the unjust past is salient in contemporary politics. In my book, Injustice and the Reproduction of History: Structural Inequalities, Gender and Redress, I put forward a framework to conceptualise the normative significance of the unjust past. In this article, I will engage with the insightful comments and try (...) to address the concerns of the contributors to the symposium on my book. I will discuss whether and in what sense my framework incorporates past-regarding duties, how it is different from causal interpretations of the relationship between past and present injustice, whether it can carve out a greater place for blame in our thinking about responsibility for structural injustice, whether such a responsibility needs to hinge upon an account of solidarity, and how de-temporalising injustice can cast new light on immigration politics. In particular, I will stress and further clarify the importance that the notion of ‘structural debt’, which my book develops to reflect on historical responsibility, can play in thinking about what is owed to an unjust history. (shrink)

In 2003, The Guardian newspapers ran an article with the headline, “Prospect of babies from unborn mothers.” A team of Israeli researchers had been attempting to grow viable eggs from the ovarian tissue of aborted fetuses for use in fertility treatments such as IVF. The rhetoric of “unborn mothers” poses new challenges to the liberal feminist discourse of personhood. How do we articulate the ethical issues involved in harvesting eggs from an aborted fetus, without resurrecting the debate over whether this (...) fetus is a full-fledged person with, for example, rights to non-interference or freedom from harm? Can we coherently defend a woman’s right to terminate pregnancy without relinquishing a feminist position from which to critique the use of aborted fetuses in certain experimental procedures? In short, what happens when the “new” discourse of reproductive technology intersects with the “old” discourse of abortion? (shrink)

This paper explores one aspect of the social implications of new reproductive technologies, namely, the impact such technologies have on our understandings of family structures and our expectations of children. In particular it considers whether the possibilities afforded by such technologies result in a more contractual and commodified understanding of children. To do this the paper outlines the possibilities afforded by NRTs and their commodificatory tendencies; second, it explores the commodification debate using the somewhat parallel example of commodification of (...) organs; and third, in light of these debates the link between the commodification of body parts and persons is addressed. It will argue that there is a prime facie connection between body parts and persons and thus, although needing to be balanced with other ethically relevant factors, commodification remains an issue of ethical concern. Accordingly we should only be supporting potentially commodifying practices when there are ethically pressing reasons to do so (such as in organ transplantation). Moreover given this link between body part and persons we should attempt to lessen commodifying attitudes and thus should resist the increasing use of practices which regard children as having choose-able parts. (shrink)

In the aftermath of allegations of the misuse of human eggs in the United States, questions are being raised about whether profitable reproductive services should continue to function in a free market under the aegis of physicians or should be regulated. Other countries in which reproductive technologies are employed to a significant degree have developed regulations governing their use, many as a result of recommendations made by inter‐disciplinary commissions that solicited public input. Policy makers in the United States (...) have been reluctant to regulate reproductive technologies, however, because their use is politically controversial, they want to whittle down government, some do not consider infertility an illness, and some believe regulation would interfere with the right to reproduce. Yet the unfettered use of reproductive technologies can create such harms as lack of informed consent, providing procedures not medically indicated for financial gain, practice by unqualified personnel, injury to patients and donors, failure to screen donated gametes, and inadequate medical record keeping. Americans place special value on the welfare of children and those who bring them into the world. Such values can outweigh individual procreative liberty when new reproductive technologies are at issue. Although the optimal course would be to establish a regulatory body to govern reproductive technologies, this is not politically feasible now. The newly established National Bioethics Advisory Commission provides a forum in which issues surrounding reproductive technologies should be addressed at this time in the United States. (shrink)

A critical review of four recent works that reflect current conflicts and tensions among feminists regarding new reproductive technologies: In Search of Parenthood by Judith Lasker and Susan Borg; Ethics and Human Reproduction by Christine Overall; Made to Order, Patricia Spallone and Deborah Steinberg, eds. and Reproductive Technologies: Gender, Motherhood and Medicine, Michelle Stanworth, ed. Their positions are evaluated against the background of growing feminist dialogue about the future of reproduction and the bearing of reproductive innovations on (...) such related issues as racism, sexuality, motherhood and abortion. (shrink)

There is something about the debate over reproductive technologies of all kinds—from coerced use of Norplant to trait-selection technologies, to issues surrounding in vitro fertilization, to fetal tissue transplantation—that seems to invite dubious analogies. A Tennessee trial court termed Mary Sue and Junior Davis's frozen embryos “in vitro children” and applied a best-interests standard in awarding “custody” to Mary Sue Davis; the Warnock Committee drew an implicit analogy between human gametes and transplantable organs in its recommendation of a voluntary, (...) nonprofit system for collecting and distributing gametes in the United Kingdom; Owen Jones compares the right to trait-selection to the right to abortion; Robert Veatch once claimed that if a woman had signed an organ donation card and then died while pregnant, she had in effect given consent to the attempt to sustain the pregnancy after her death; John Robertson has argued that contract pregnancy poses no problems we have not already encountered with adoption; and Andrea Bonnicksen has compared the wonders of preembryonic genetic screening to the riches housed in the gold museum in Bogota, Colombia. (shrink)

Some evidence suggests that IVF and other reproductive technologies create serious illness and disorders in a small but significant proportion of children who are born of them. If these technologies were found to do so, it would be wrong to forge ahead with their use.

In the field of medically assisted reproduction (MAR), there is a growing emphasis on the importance of introducing new assisted reproductive technologies (ARTs) only after thorough preclinical safety research, including the use of animal models. At the same time, there is international support for the three R’s (replace, reduce, refine), and the European Union even aims at the full replacement of animals for research. The apparent tension between these two trends underlines the urgency of an explicit justification of the (...) use of animals for the development and preclinical testing of new ARTs. Considering that the use of animals remains necessary for specific forms of ART research and taking account of different views on the moral importance of helping people to have a genetically related child, we argue that, in principle, the importance of safety research as part of responsible innovation outweighs the limited infringement of animal wellbeing involved in ART research. (shrink)

There is something about the debate over reproductive technologies of all kinds—from coerced use of Norplant to trait-selection technologies, to issues surrounding in vitro fertilization, to fetal tissue transplantation—that seems to invite dubious analogies. A Tennessee trial court termed Mary Sue and Junior Davis's frozen embryos “in vitro children” and applied a best-interests standard in awarding “custody” to Mary Sue Davis; the Warnock Committee drew an implicit analogy between human gametes and transplantable organs in its recommendation of a voluntary, (...) nonprofit system for collecting and distributing gametes in the United Kingdom; Owen Jones compares the right to trait-selection to the right to abortion; Robert Veatch once claimed that if a woman had signed an organ donation card and then died while pregnant, she had in effect given consent to the attempt to sustain the pregnancy after her death; John Robertson has argued that contract pregnancy poses no problems we have not already encountered with adoption; and Andrea Bonnicksen has compared the wonders of preembryonic genetic screening to the riches housed in the gold museum in Bogota, Colombia. (shrink)

A critical review of four recent works that reflect current conflicts and tensions among feminists regarding new reproductive technologies: In Search of Parenthood by Judith Lasker and Susan Borg; Ethics and Human Reproduction by Christine Overall; Made to Order, Patricia Spallone and Deborah Steinberg, eds. and Reproductive Technologies: Gender, Motherhood and Medicine, Michelle Stanworth, ed. Their positions are evaluated against the background of growing feminist dialogue about the future of reproduction and the bearing of reproductive innovations on (...) such related issues as racism, sexuality, motherhood and abortion. (shrink)

As a neo-liberal economy, India has become one of the new health tourism destinations, with commercial gestational surrogacy as an expanding market. Yet the Indian Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill has been pending for five years, and the guidelines issued by the Indian Council of Medical Research are somewhat vague and contradictory, resulting in self-regulated practices of fertility clinics. This paper broadly looks at clinical ethics in reproduction in the practice of surrogacy and decision-making in various procedures. Through empirical research (...) in New Delhi, the capital of India, from December 2011 to November 2012, issues of decision-making on embryo transfer, fetal reduction, and mode of delivery were identified. Interviews were carried out with doctors in eighteen ART clinics, agents from four agencies, and fourteen surrogates. In aiming to fulfil the commissioning parents’ demands, doctors were willing to go to the greatest extent possible in their medical practice. Autonomy and decision-making regarding choice of the number of embryos to transfer and the mode of delivery lay neither with commissioning parents nor surrogate mothers but mostly with doctors. In order to ensure higher success rates, surrogates faced the risk of multiple pregnancy and fetal reduction with little information regarding the risks involved. In the globalized market of commercial surrogacy in India, and with clinics compromising on ethics, there is an urgent need for formulation of regulative law for the clinical practice and maintenance of principles of reproductive ethics in order to ensure that the interests of surrogate mothers are safeguarded. (shrink)

New parents suddenly come face to face with myriad issues that demand careful attention but appear in a context unlikely to provide opportunities for extended or clear-headed critical reflection, whether at home with a new baby or in the neonatal intensive care unit. As such, their capacity for autonomy may be compromised. Attending to new parental autonomy as an extension of reproductive autonomy, and as a complicated phenomenon in its own right rather than simply as a matter to be (...) balanced against other autonomy rights, can help us to see how new parents might be aided in their quest for competency and good decision making. In this paper I show how a relational view of autonomy – attentive to the coercive effects of oppressive social norms and to the importance of developing autonomy competency, especially as related to self-trust – can improve our understanding of the situation of new parents and signal ways to cultivate and to better respect their autonomy. (shrink)