Abstract
The article first examines the various objections to IVF: religious, health and safety, and feminist. It is argued that none of these objections provides good reasons for banning IVF, though certain controls and procedures to protect individuals from harm and exploitation may be appropriate. Next, the article critiques John Robertson's strong conception of procreative liberty, which entails a right to be a surrogate mother or serve as a sperm donor. Robertson's interpretation misconceives the nature and value of the right to reproduce. The right to reproduce is best interpreted as a right to have one's own children to rear. Where there is no intent or ability to rear, there is no fundamental moral right to reproduce. However, since assisted reproduction is used to enable individuals to have their own children to rear, it should be available to infertile individuals who cannot otherwise reproduce.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Robertson J: Children of Choice: Freedom and the New Reproductive Technologies. Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press, 1994, p 9
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith: Instruction on respect for human life in its origin and on the dignity of procreation: replies to certain questions of the day, February 22, 1987. Reprinted in Intervention and Reflection: Basic Issues in Medical Ethics, 4th ed, R Munson (ed). Belmont, CA, Wadsworth, 1992, pp 479–487
Some Roman Catholic theologians agree. Criticizing the Church's blanket opposition to IVF, Richard McCormick says, “The most that can be argued is that a child should be born within a marriage from a loving act. Sexual intercourse is not the only loving act.” Munson,supra note 2, at 480.
The term “pre-implantation embryo” or “pre-embryo” is often used to denote the product of conception from fertilization until implantation in the uterus, a stage lasting about 10 days. The word “pre-embryo” indicates both that implantation has not yet occurred and that the product of conception has not yet differentiated into the embryo proper, which will become the fetus, and the placenta. Although “pre-embryo” is the more precise term for the fertilized egg in the context of IVF, I will sometimes refer to the embryo. Nothing of moral significance rests on the terminology.
For a full discussion of the issue, see my Life Before Birth: The Moral and Legal Status of Embryos and Fetuses. Oxford University Press, 1992, especially Chapters 1 and 2
See, for example, Warren MA: On the moral and legal status of abortion, The Monist (1973); 57; Tooley M: Abortion and Infanticide. Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1983; Feinberg J: Abortion.In Matters of Life and Death, 2nd ed, T Regan (ed). New York, Random House, 1986; Marquis D: Why abortion is immoral. J Philos 1989;86:183–202, at 186
Marquis,supra note 6 at 186
See Harris J: The Value of Life: An Introduction to Medic Ethics. London, Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1985, pp 11–12
See Singer P, Dawson K: IVF technology and the argument from potential. Philos Public Affairs 1988;17:2 at 95
The Catholic Church distinguishes between medical intervention to remove the causes of infertility and the prescription of drugs to promote fertility, both of which it deems morally legitimate, and artificial fertilization and IVF, which it maintains are morally illicit.Supra note 2.
Kass L: ‘Making babies’ revisited, Public Interest 1979, no. 54. Reprinted in Arras JD, Steinbock B: Ethical Issues in Modern Medicine, 4th ed. Mountain View, CA, Mayfield, 1995, pp 430-2
Id. at 431-2
For an excellent summary, see The New York State Task Force on Life and the Law, Surrogate Parenting: Analysis and Recommendations for Public Policy, May 1988
Robertson,supra note 1, at 122
For an argument that compensated surrogacy need not be babyselling, see my Surrogate motherhood as prenatal adoption.In Gostin L (ed). Surrogate Motherhood: Politics and Privacy, Bloomington and Indianapolis, Indiana University Press, 1990, pp 123–135
Proceed with Care: Final Report of the Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies, Vol. 2, Nov 30, 1993, at 718
Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies: Update, December 1993, at 8.
Proceed with Care,supra note 16, at 708
Id. at 696. Mary Anne Warren expresses a similar concern in IVF and women's interests: an analysis of feminist concerns,Bioethics 1988,2:37–57, at 49
For a discussion of secrecy vs. disclosure of collaborative birth, see Robertson,supra note 1, Chapter 6
Vines G: Shots in the dark for infertility, New Scientist 1993;13–14
According to Paul Lancaster, Director of the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, National Perinatal Statistics Unit at the University of Sydney. This unit has collected comprehensive statistics on IVF children since the late 1970s.
Robin P: How to Be a Successful Fertility Patient. New York, William Morrow, p 226
Altman LK: Study uncovers link of cancer to birth drugs.New York Times, Sept. 22, 1994, A22, citing report published inThe New England Journal of Medicine. The study does not prove a causal link between fertility drugs and ovarian cancer, although it buttresses the existing data supporting such a link. The National Institutes of Health is paying for further research to determine which treatments are most risky and to identify the women most at risk.
Warren,supra note 19, at 38
Robertson,supra note 1, at 114
The Fertility Clinic Success Rate and Certification Act of 1992 requires that each IVF program report annually to the Centers for Disease Control their pregnancy success rates as defined in the act.
Warren,supra note 19, at 39–40
Sherwin S: Feminist ethics and in vitro fertilization.In Science, Morality, and Feminist Theory, M Haene, K Nielsen (eds). Calgary, Alberta, University of Calgary Press, 1987, pp 265–284. Reprinted in Beauchamp L, Walters L: eds., Contemporary Issues in Bioethics 4th ed. Belmont, CA, Wadsworth, pp 224–232, at 229
Singer P: Creating embryos.In Ethical Issues at the Outset of Life, WB Weil, M Benjamin (eds). Cambridge, MA, Blackwell, 1987, pp 43–62. Reprinted in Arras JD, Steinbock B (eds). Ethical Issues in Modern Medicine, 4th ed. Mountain View, CA, Mayfield, 1995, at 438
Sherwin,supra note 29,, at 229
Warren,supra note 19, at 39
Sherwin,supra note 29,, at 228
United States Congress, Office of Technology Assessment: Infertility: Medical and Social Choices. Washington DC, Government Printing Office, 1988
Robertson,supra note 1, at 226
Robertson,supra note 1, at 24
Robertson,supra note 1, at 221
Robertson,supra note 1, at 39
Robertson,supra note 1, at 131
Robertson,supra note 1, at 227 (emphasis added)
Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 153 (1973)
Scott ES: Sterilization of mentally retarded persons: reproductive rights and family privacy. Duke Law J 1986;806, at 828–829
Robertson,supra note 1, at 73
Robertson,supra note 1, at 76
Robertson,supra note 1, at 117
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Steinbock, B. A Philosopher looks at assisted reproduction. J Assist Reprod Genet 12, 543–551 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02212918
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02212918