Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T20:11:05.910Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Distributive Justice and the Regulation of Fertility Centers: An Analysis of the Fertility Clinic Success Rate and Certification Act

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 July 2009

Doris J. Baker  and
Mary A. Paterson
Doris J. Baker
Affiliation:
Department of Clinical Laboratory Sciences, University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Mary A. Paterson
Affiliation:
Department of Health Care Administration, College of Health Sciences, University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The right to conceive and bear children has been protected both in law and in policy. Human society has from its earliest time valued children and defended procreation as a basic right.

Modern health technology offers the possibility of conception to the estimated 2.5 million infertile couples who may wish to have children. For these persons, infertility treatment offers the hope of having children, an activity deemed basic and essential in human society.

In general, the state has been reluctant to directly interfere in the reproductive decisions of individuals. However, the state may act to increase or reduce access to reproductive services in a variety of ways. For example, recent legislation regulating fertility clinics affects the distribution of assisted reproductive technology (ART) in the United States. The purpose of this paper is to describe this legislation, project its probable effects on the distribution of ART services, and analyze these effects based on distributive theories of justice.

Type
Articles
Information
Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics , Volume 3 , Issue 3 , Summer 1994 , pp. 383 - 390
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1994

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.)

References

Notes

1. American Fertility Society Ethics Committee. Ethical considerations of the new reproductive technologies. Fertility and Sterility 1990;53(6, Pt. 2):28.Google Scholar

2. Lefcourt, C, ed. Women and the Law. New York: Boardman, 1984.Google Scholar

3. Assisted reproductive technology (ART) will be the term used throughout this paper to refer to any procedure that involves the handling of human oocytes or embryos, including in vitro fertilization (IVF), gamete intrafallopian transfer (GIFT), and zygote intrafallopian transfer (ZIFT).

4. United States Congress. House of Representatives. Committee on Energy and Commerce. Subcommittee on Health and the Environment. Hearing on H.R. 3940, A Bill to Provide for the Certification of Embryo Laboratories. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1992.Google Scholar

5. United States Congress. Office of Technology Assessment. Infertility: Medical and Social Choices [OTA-BA–358]. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1988.Google Scholar

6. Fox, J. Affording Your Infertility. Norwell, Massachusetts: Serono Laboratories, 1992.Google Scholar

7. Wilcox, L, Peterson, H, Haseltine, F et al. , Defining and interpreting pregnancy success rates for in vitro fertilization. Fertility and Sterility 1993;60:18–25.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

8. Public Law 102–493, The Fertility Clinic Success Rate and Certification Act, U.S. 102d Congress. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1992.Google Scholar

9. Rawls, J. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1971.Google Scholar

10. Wagner, M, St. Clair, P. Are in-vitro fertilization and embryo transfer of benefit to all? Lancet 1989;8670:1027–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

11. United States Congress. Office of Technology Assessment. Biomedical Ethics in U.S. Public Policy; Background Paper. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1993.Google Scholar