Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T01:31:57.535Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

20 - Ethical aspects of controversies in assisted reproductive technology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 October 2009

Françoise Shenfield
Affiliation:
Reproductive Medicine Unit, Elizabeth Garrett Anderson and Obstetric Hospital, London, UK
Paul Serhal
Affiliation:
The University College London Hospitals
Caroline Overton
Affiliation:
Bristol Royal Infirmary
Get access

Summary

Many ethical dilemmas are raised by assisted reproduction as we are confronted by our intuitive understanding of whether it is right or wrong to offer treatment, refuse treatment or perform research, often in a context of possibilities that could barely have been contemplated in the recent past. This chapter is intended to give an overview of just some of the ethical aspects of controversies in assisted reproductive technology (ART) and hopefully to enable insight into others arisen and those yet to arise.

Issues in gamete donation

The two main issues are payment or donation (a misnomer if indeed payment is offered) and the question of donor's anonymity. The interests of the donors of gametes are also an ethical issue (Shenfield, 1998).

Payment or compensation to donors

The semantic argument (Shenfield & Steele, 1995) is that a donation of gametes and embryos should be free, otherwise the term ‘donation’ would be ‘sale’. The counter-argument is that in practice there are difficulties matching supply to demand, especially in the case of oocytes, and should pragmatism not prevail in a scarce supply environment? In the United Kingdom (UK), the law states that ‘no money or other kind of benefit shall be given or received in respect of any supply of gametes or embryos unless authorised by directions’ (Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990). The notion of a gift is also enshrined in law in France and Spain (Shenfield, 2001).

The ethical argument against payment might be Immanuel Kant's assertion that one must ‘treat all humanity always at the same time as an end and never merely as a means’ (Kant, trans. 1993).

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2004

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×