RBMOnline - Vol. 19 Suppl. 1. 2009 5-14 Reproductive BioMedicine Online; www.rbmonline.com/Article/3669 on web 13 May 2009 Article Reproductive and parental autonomy: an argument for compulsory parental education Lisa Bortolotti is Senior Lecturer in Philosophy at the University of Birmingham (UK). She works in the philosophy of cognitive sciences and in applied ethics. Her publications include An Introduction to the Philosophy of Science (Polity Press, 2008), and an edited volume entitled Philosophy and Happiness (Palgrave Macmillan, in press). Her current project is an investigation of the role of rationality judgements and attributions of self-knowledge in the ascription of beliefs. With Daniela Cutas, who is a Post-doctoral Research Fellow in the Philosophy Department at the University of Gothenburg, Lisa shares an interest in the ethics of reproduction and parenting. Dr Lisa Bortolotti Delivered by Ingenta to: Swets IP : 192.87.50.3 Thu, 12 Nov 2009 12:30:37 Lisa Bortolotti1,3, Daniela Cutas2 1 Philosophy Department, University of Birmingham, UK; 2Department of Philosophy, Linguistics and Theory of Science, University of Gothenburg, Sweden 3 Correspondence: e-mail: l.bortolotti@bham.ac.uk Abstract In this paper we argue that comprehensive and systematic parental education has the potential to equip young adults with the necessary information for the responsible exercise of their autonomy in choices about reproduction and parenting. Education can allow young adults to acquire largely accurate beliefs about reproduction and parenting and about the implications of their reproductive and parental choices. Far from being a limitation of individual freedom, the acquisition of relevant information about reproduction and parenting and the acquisition of self-knowledge with respect to reproductive and parenting choices can help give shape to individual life plans. We make a case for compulsory parental education on the basis of the need to respect and enhance individual reproductive and parental autonomy within a culture that presents contradictory attitudes WRZDUGVUHSURGXFWLRQDQGZKHUHGHFLVLRQVDERXWZKHWKHUWREHFRPHDSDUHQWDUHVXEMHFWWRVLJQLÀFDQWSUHVVXUHDQGVFUXWLQ\ Keywords: assisted reproduction, childlessness, education, parental autonomy, pro-reproductive culture, reproductive autonomy Introduction ,Q WKH SDSHU ZH DUJXH IRU WZR PDLQ WKHVHV 7KH ÀUVW WKHVLV is that, if we accept the widespread view that reproductive autonomy should be respected and that one ought to be allowed to decide if, when and how to reproduce, then we should also make sure that choices about one’s reproductive future are well informed and made in such a way as to promote both one’s life goals and the wellbeing of one’s potential children. The second thesis is that one promising way to enable people to make informed and responsible choices about whether to become parents and about how to be good parents is for society to contribute more explicitly to the process by which young adults acquire information not just about sex and personal relationships, but also about reproductive choices and parenting. The paper does not argue for the existence or legitimacy of reproductive and parenting rights, but assumes as a starting point that there is some degree of personal autonomy in individual choices about reproduction and parenting and that it is this autonomy that would ground the right to reproduce and parent. The argument that parental education should be made compulsory can be supported by a number of considerations. Parental education has the potential to contribute to good parenting and the wellbeing of children in a way that is non-intrusive and relatively easy to implement. In arguing for compulsory parental education, one is not committed to whether licensing parents (or indeed other more intrusive ways of ensuring SURWHFWLRQIURPEDGSDUHQWLQJ LVMXVWLÀHGRUDSSURSULDWHIRUWKH purposes of safeguarding children’s wellbeing (for some of the most important arguments for licensing parents, see LaFollette, 1980, 1982; Westman, 1994; Tittle, 2004). Empirical studies on parenting suggest, as we shall see, that good parenting is not a gift, or a prerogative of people who reproduce naturally and have a genetic link with the children they raise, but depends on the quality of the relationship between parent and child (Chan et al., 1998; Golombok, 2000). Ways in which the quality of the parent–child relationship can be promoted and enhanced are the appropriate and desired object of parental education. Ethics, Bioscience and Life, Vol. 4, No. 2, July 2009 © 2009 Published by Reproductive Healthcare Ltd, Duck End Farm, Dry Drayton, Cambridge CB23 8DB, UK 5 Article - Compulsory education for reproductive and parental autonomy - L Bortolotti & D Cutas Delivered by Ingenta to: Swets IP : 192.87.50.3 Thu, 12 Nov 2009 12:30:37 In the paper, we develop another set of considerations in favour of compulsory parental education, based on the need to support the exercise of reproductive and parental autonomy, especially LQ WKH SURUHSURGXFWLYH FXOWXUH ZKLFK SHUPHDWHV PRVW DIÁXHQW societies. The claim that the exercise of reproductive autonomy could be supported by reliable information to be obtained via compulsory parental education is compatible with any notion of autonomy that is tied to the exercise of reason and to the capacity to provide reasons for one’s intentional attitudes and decisions. The exercise of reproductive and parental autonomy requires one to recognize the pervasive effects of societal and peer pressure on one’s life goals and, especially, appreciate the contradictions RI WKH SURUHSURGXFWLYH FXOWXUH LQ DIÁXHQW VRFLHWLHV ZLWK ORZ fertility. As for any other type of autonomy, the exercise of autonomous choices in reproduction and parenting requires one to be sensitive to available evidence and reasons for and against currently accepted beliefs. 6 This appreciation would allow one to form beliefs that are largely correct about one’s own life goals and would increase one’s probability of success at achieving those goals. As with any other decision that affects an agent’s life in lasting and radical ways, such as the choice of partner or career, reliable information about what personal relationships and parenting involve and about what is likely to make these experiences positive and rewarding are central to forming beliefs that are largely correct about one’s own goals and about one’s potential in achieving them. We shall focus on one reason why parental education is urgently needed, a reason that is often neglected in the current debate. The contradictions present in the public perception of reproduction and parenting make it harder to acknowledge the factors that contribute WR JRRG SDUHQWLQJ DQG WR UHÁHFW XSRQ WKH UHDVRQV IRU RQH·V choices about reproduction and parenting. This can culminate in undesirable outcomes for all the individuals involved, for instance a large number of births that are not ‘intended’ in a genuinely autonomous way and a skewed perception of the criteria for good parenting due to the existing inconsistencies in the regulation of natural and assisted reproduction. Elements of the current culture, which combines low fertility with societal pressure to reproduce, and the resistance to any form of interference with QDWXUDOSDUHQWKRRGDUHRIWHQMXVWLÀHGRQWKHEDVLVRIWKHULJKWWR reproductive and parental autonomy. But whether the rights-talk LVMXVWLÀHGDQGDSSURSULDWHLQWKLVFRQWH[WLWLVFRQVLVWHQWZLWK the protection of reproductive and parental autonomy that agents are supported in their exercise of autonomous choices in those domains. This does not mean that the burden should be placed H[FOXVLYHO\RQLQGLYLGXDODJHQWVWRREWDLQSURFHVVDQGUHÁHFWRQ relevant information, but that societal institutions should make it a priority to make information accessible and to equip agents with the resources to critically assess it. If parental education were made widely available and became compulsory, it would have an obvious advantage with respect to current prenatal classes aimed exclusively at prospective parents or the proposal of subjecting only the parents of children with behavioural problems to mandatory advice on parenting skills. Parental education, as we think of it, would enable everybody from an early age to form largely correct beliefs about reproduction and parenting and exercise their autonomy with greater responsibility. All agents would be made aware of the needs of children and of their families and be in a better position to support others in their choices about reproduction and parenting. Ethics, Bioscience and Life, Vol. 4, No. 2, July 2009 In some European countries, there is some provision for parental education. In Italy, health authorities make available for free, or at a very affordable price, parenting classes for mothers-tobe and fathers-to-be (prenatal classes), which can be attended from month 6 of gestation. These focus on practical information concerning delivery and breastfeeding. They also schedule meetings with fully trained obstetricians and psychologists to discuss various aspects of parents and children’s health before and after delivery. Apart from local exceptions, they do not address relationships and parenting more generally. In Sweden, municipalities offer advice, support and access to discussion groups to parents of average children, not just problem children (The Local, 2008) and the initiative has been praised by parents. There is yet no proposal to extend participation to non-parents or prospective parents. Although the government in Sweden has promoted sex education in schools since 1942, good parenting is also missing from the list of central issues to be discussed in the classroom (Boethius, 1985; Trost and Bergstrom-Walan, 1997–2001). There is, at present, a debate in some other European countries on whether sex and relationship education should be made compulsory and for which age group (e.g. UK), but the curriculum developed for such a subject (Smith, 2006; BBC, 2008) does not VHHP WR FRQWDLQ VXIÀFLHQW LQIRUPDWLRQ DERXW UHSURGXFWLRQ DQG parenting, which is a source of concern. The exercise of autonomy is supported when people are encouraged to make informed choices and when they are allowed to develop a critical attitude towards the common practices and external pressures that have an impact on their decision making. 7KLVFODLPQHHGVWREHTXDOLÀHGLQWZRLPSRUWDQWZD\V)LUVWWR say that reliable information about reproduction and parenting is necessary to exercise autonomy is not to say that it is also necessary to possess the capacities for autonomous thought and action. An agent either possesses the capacities for autonomous thought and action, or she doesn’t. No amount of information can make a difference to the possession of those capacities. But the exercise of those capacities gives rise to autonomous thought and action only if the agent has some understanding of what she is making decisions about. This applies to any thematic domain, DQGUHSURGXFWLRQDQGSDUHQWLQJDUHMXVWDQH[HPSOLÀFDWLRQRID more general point. Second, to say that reliable information is necessary for the exercise of autonomy is not to say that the agent should be found epistemically or morally lacking if a decision is made in absence of the relevant information. Information needs to be made widely available and the acquisition of information needs to be encouraged in order to promote autonomous thought and action. Thus, the burden is on society to equip agents with the information that makes their choices autonomous. This is why our proposal involves making compulsory education in a certain domain. Notice that, again, this point is not particularly original to the debate on reproductive autonomy: in contemporary critiques of informed consent in medical research and therapy, it has been observed that often research participants and clients are asked to make decisions without having exposure to and understanding of facts that are relevant to their decisions (O’Neill, 2002). A similar observation has been made concerning referenda by which the general public in democratic states are sometimes asked to express a preference about states of affairs that are described in a very technical language and whose implications Article - Compulsory education for reproductive and parental autonomy - L Bortolotti & D Cutas are not always clearly spelt out (or cannot be spelt out in a way that is acceptable to all the parties concerned). This observation pushes commentators in one of two directions: either to suggest that current practice be revised to guarantee that decisions are genuinely informed, or to advocate the return to, or introduction of, a system where decisions are made by experts in consultation with the public rather than by the public themselves. 7KHLPSRUWRIWKHVHTXDOLÀFDWLRQVIRUWKHSURSRVDOZHDUHSXWWLQJ IRUZDUGDQGIXUWKHUTXDOLÀFDWLRQVLQYROYLQJWKHUROHRISHUVRQDO values and life projects for decisions about reproduction and parenting, will become more obvious in the following section. Delivered by Ingenta to: Swets IP : 192.87.50.3 Thu, 12 Nov 2009 12:30:37 Autonomy and self-knowledge There are many competing philosophical accounts of what autonomy is and what it entails and these debates have been UHYLVLWHG LQ WKH ÀHOG RI UHSURGXFWLYH HWKLFV 2XU SURSRVDO LV compatible with and can be supported by any philosophical approach to autonomy which acknowledges the following: in order to exercise autonomy in making decisions about reproduction and parenting, one needs to: (i) possess the capacities that make autonomous thought and action possible; and (ii) be in a position to form largely accurate beliefs about reproduction and parenting and about one’s life goals and aspirations with respect to reproduction and parenting. As part of the requirement of being in a position to form largely accurate beliefs, one must be sensitive to available evidence that is relevant to those beliefs and to the way in which decisions with long-term consequences are compatible with one’s values and life goals. This does not rule out that there can be dissonance between an agent’s values and DXWRQRPRXVGHFLVLRQV9DOXHVDQGOLIHJRDOVFDQEHLQFRQÁLFW with the agent’s decisions about reproduction and parenting. But UHÁHFWLYH DJHQWV QHHG WR EH LQ D SRVLWLRQ WR EH DZDUH RI VXFK dissonance or the need for revision. Support for the above requirements for the exercise of autonomous choice can be found in the classical philosophical literature on autonomy. Dworkin (1988, p.20) claims that ‘autonomy is conceived of a second-order capacity of persons WR UHÁHFW FULWLFDOO\ XSRQ WKHLU ÀUVWRUGHU SUHIHUHQFHV GHVLUHV wishes and so forth and the capacity to accept or change these in light of higher-order preferences and values’. He continues: ¶%\ H[HUFLVLQJ VXFK D FDSDFLW\ SHUVRQV GHÀQH WKHLU QDWXUH give meaning to their lives, and take responsibility for the kind of person they are.’ The idea is that acting autonomously is not simply acting intentionally, acting for a reason or acting without being explicitly coerced, but it involves the capacity to evaluate the reasons for forming a certain intention and taking a certain course of action. This reading of autonomy is faithful to its literal meaning, which is ‘self-governance’, and does require WKHH[HUFLVHRIWKHFDSDFLWLHVIRUUHÁHFWLRQDQGVHOIHYDOXDWLRQ If this view of autonomy is embraced, then it follows that people exercise their reproductive and parental autonomy when they are JLYHQWKHRSSRUWXQLW\WRUHÁHFWXSRQDQGHYDOXDWHWKHUHDVRQVIRU their reproductive and parental choices. Other authors promote a view of autonomy that is interestingly related to the exercise of reason and self-knowledge. Feinberg (1986, p.33) for instance, connects the notion of autonomy with that of authenticity: ‘A person is authentic to the extent that […] he can and does subject his opinions and tastes to rational Ethics, Bioscience and Life, Vol. 4, No. 2, July 2009 scrutiny. He is authentic to the extent that he can and does alter his convictions for reasons of his own, and does this without guilt RUDQ[LHW\·0F/HRG S GHÀQHVDXWRQRPRXVSHRSOH DVWKRVHZKR¶UHÁHFWRQZKDWWKH\WUXO\EHOLHYHDQGYDOXHDQG they act accordingly’. She goes on to say that: ‘They are also FRPSHWHQW DQG FRPPLWWHG WR HQJDJH LQ VXFK UHÁHFWLRQ DQG WR act on the results.’ The reference to authenticity and competence LQ VHOIUHÁHFWLRQ LV D ZHOFRPH UHPLQGHU WKDW DXWRQRP\ LV WLHG to beliefs about oneself, what one desires, what one values and how one wants one’s own life to be. What idealized pictures of autonomy often miss is the extent to which higher-order values or preferences are subject to revision in an agent’s life (Baker, 2000). Of course, stability of life goals is essential to the type of agency we exercise and recognize in others (Williams, 1973; Lenman, 2009). But personal values should not be seen DV LPPXWDEOH VWDQGDUGV E\ ZKLFK ÀUVWRUGHU SUHIHUHQFHV DUH assessed, endorsed or discarded. Rather, they are complex evolving constructs that make sense of one’s own unity as an agent and one’s own capacity for change and self-creation. There is a recent development in philosophy of mind and cognitive psychology which links sensitivity to reasons in GHOLEHUDWLRQDQGMXVWLÀFDWLRQRIEHOLHIV DQGRWKHUDWWLWXGHVVXFK as intentions and preferences) with self-knowledge. According to this approach, sensitivity to reasons and self-knowledge are not just two unrelated features of autonomous agents, but are dependent on one another (Moran, 2001; Ferrero, 2003; Lawlor, 2003; Bortolotti and Broome, 2008; Tiberius, 2008). Here is how the story goes. An agent can form beliefs on the basis of evidence and acknowledge that she has those beliefs. Those beliefs might EH RQO\ VXSHUÀFLDOO\ XQFULWLFDOO\ HQGRUVHG WKDW LV HQGRUVHG for reasons that are not regarded as good reasons by the agent. Although this non-committal attitude of the agent towards the content of the belief doesn’t make the reported state less of a EHOLHILWGRHVDIIHFWWKHH[WHQWWRZKLFKWKHDJHQWKDVÀUVWSHUVRQ authority over the belief. First-person authority in its agential dimensions involves the exercise of capacities that are central to our conception of autonomous agents. For example, Helena has ÀUVWSHUVRQDXWKRULW\RYHUKHUSUHIHUHQFHIRUDGRSWLQJDFKLOGLI she is aware of her preference and she is in a position to offer reasons for it, which she takes to be good reasons. Considerations of those reasons contribute to her knowing that she has that preference, or a preference with that content. In absence of the opportunity to give reasons for that preference which she takes to be good reasons, Helena cannot be said to have deliberated about her preference to adopt or to be able to justify it. The possibility to determine and justify what one thinks with reasons is essential for what Richard Moran (2001) calls authorship. In order to be the author of a belief, the agent has to acknowledge it, but also needs to have the capacity to endorse its content with reasons. By authoring beliefs (intentions, desires, preferences, etc.) and manifesting the capacity to defend them ZLWK UHDVRQV WKH DJHQW JDLQV ÀUVWSHUVRQ DXWKRULW\ RYHU WKRVH EHOLHIV 7KLV W\SH RI ÀUVWSHUVRQ DXWKRULW\ LV QRW D SDVVLYH epistemic achievement acquired by introspection, but an active engagement with reasons, which ensues from an act of GHOLEHUDWLRQRUMXVWLÀFDWLRQ7KHUHLVDORWLQFRPPRQEHWZHHQ this notion of authorship of mental states and autonomous decision making: the language of commitment and responsibility LV VKDUHG DQG WKH OLQN LV QRW GLIÀFXOW WR H[SOLFLWDWH$UJXDEO\ Helena is not autonomous about her decision to adopt unless she has authored her preference for adoption. 7 Article - Compulsory education for reproductive and parental autonomy - L Bortolotti & D Cutas Delivered by Ingenta to: Swets IP : 192.87.50.3 Thu, 12 Nov 2009 12:30:37 ,I ZH ÀQG WKLV DFFRXQW RI ÀUVWSHUVRQ DXWKRULW\ SODXVLEOH WKHQ there is a link between sensitivity to reasons for one’s attitudes and self-knowledge with respect to those attitudes. If an agent has what she regards as good reasons for a belief, she will defend the belief against criticism or pressure and, at the same time, she will be prepared to give up that belief if convincing evidence against it comes about. Sensitivity to reasons can be manifested in different ways and the constant re-assessment of one’s beliefs and attitudes about important life-changing matters, such as reproductive or parenting choices, needs to take into account both the agent’s personal values and aspirations and reliable factual information about those practices. In order for agents to exercise their autonomy, choices about reproduction and parenting (as GR DQ\ RWKHU FKRLFHV WKDW DIIHFW WKHLU OLYHV LQ D VLJQLÀFDQW DQG lasting way) need to be well informed. For agents to take a stance over whether reproducing and parenting are suitable life goals for them, they need to know what they want and what they have reasons to believe would be good for themselves, but they also need to realize early on what reproduction and parenting entail and how their own wellbeing and the wellbeing of their potential children can be promoted. This awareness of the conditions that make for successful UHSURGXFWLRQDQGSDUHQWLQJLVDVLJQLÀFDQWVWHSWRZDUGVPDNLQJ an informed decision about whether reproduction and parenting should be part of one’s own life project. When one is the author of a belief and is prepared to defend the content of that belief with reasons, the belief is likely to be well integrated in the system of cognitive attitudes that characterizes the autonomous agent and to be ‘written into’ a narrative of oneself. For instance, Helena’s FKRLFH WR DGRSW RQFH PDGH DQG UHÁHFWHG XSRQ RQ WKH EDVLV RI reasons, is likely to become part of Helena’s own life story and she will identify herself with (among other things) a person who wants to adopt a child. Philosophers and psychologists (McAdams, 1993; Velleman, 2006) have recently paid close attention to the role of selfnarratives in the formation of a self-conception that can contribute to reconstructing memories and rationalizing past experiences, but also to propelling one into the future by guiding action. By being the narrator of one’s own story, one also determines how one is going to act in the future, as the image that one has formed about oneself will shape future beliefs, intentions and actions. Some authors would argue for the centrality of narrative conceptions of the self in the preconditions for the exercise of autonomy: when psychopathologies interfere with the formation of a coherent selfnarrative, the capacity to provide reasons for reported attitudes and consistency between reported attitudes and behaviour can be radically compromised (Bortolotti and Broome, 2008). Paradoxes of a pro-reproductive culture with low fertility So far, the picture of the relation between autonomous agency and self-knowledge that we have sketched can apply to decisions that have important repercussions on people’s lives (e.g. whether to go to university), but do not tell us something VSHFLÀF DERXW WKH H[HUFLVH RI UHSURGXFWLYH RU SDUHQWDO autonomy. In this section we want to explain why the exercise of autonomy needs to be especially supported in the case of reproduction and parenting. 8 We suggested that the enemy of autonomous decision making is the reliance on uncritically held beliefs and on beliefs that Ethics, Bioscience and Life, Vol. 4, No. 2, July 2009 are largely inaccurate because insensitive to available evidence. These are beliefs about the options to choose from and about oneself. In the areas of reproduction and parenting, many DIÁXHQWVRFLHWLHVDUHFKDUDFWHUL]HGE\DSURUHSURGXFWLYHFXOWXUH WKDW VHQGV RXW FRQÁLFWLQJ PHVVDJHV DERXW SUDFWLFHV WKDW DUH acceptable and does not encourage a variety of approaches to reproduction and parenting as life choices. Absence of reliable information or misleading information about reproduction and parenting make societal pressures even more of a threat to the exercise of autonomy. In the rest of the section, we shall illustrate this point by reference to the existing paradoxes in the popular attitudes towards reproduction and childlessness. Attitudes towards the regulation of reproduction and parenting Whilst the choice of becoming a parent by sexual reproduction is unregulated all over Europe, most European countries have regulations imposing criteria that people must satisfy if they wish to gain access to assisted reproduction and parenting. The existence of regulations in this latter area is largely accepted and the objections raised to current regulations usually concern WKHVXLWDELOLW\RIVSHFLÀFFULWHULDUDWKHUWKDQWKHOHJLWLPDF\RI imposing any criteria at all. No good reasons are being put forward in support of preserving this asymmetry between natural and assisted reproduction (Cutas, 2009). There is no evidence suggesting that natural parents are better parents. It is generally argued that children’s wellbeing is worth the invasive practices undertaken on prospective parents and that some people (sexual minorities, older people, people with low income, couples whose relationship functions badly, people with mental illness or a criminal record) should be denied assistance to become parents RUDWOHDVWÀQDQFLDODVVLVWDQFH ZKHUHDVVLVWDQFHLVIUHHRIFKDUJH for other categories of prospective parents). Here we do not take a stance on whether it is ethically appropriate to regulate access to reproduction and parenting, nor do we address the general question as to whether people’s HIIRUWVWREHFRPHSDUHQWVVKRXOGHYHUEHDVVLVWHGÀQDQFLDOO\:H are interested in the asymmetries between natural and assisted reproduction and in the criteria adopted to select prospective parents for assistance. Assisted reproduction is carefully scrutinized, whereas public moral disapproval of natural reproduction in mentally unstable, poor or unhappy individuals, or in individuals with a criminal record, is rare and cautious. Where funding for assisted reproduction is available and is provided on a competitive basis, criteria should be fair and reasonable. However, current criteria are grounded on beliefs DERXWÀWQHVVWREHFRPHDSDUHQWZKLFKLVQRWDUJXHGIRU For example, no reliable and authoritative studies show that homosexual parents are less successful in their relationship with their children, or that their children tend to be less psychologically healthy than the children of heterosexual couples. There is evidence that the parent–child relationships in households with homosexual parents are equally good or even better than in heterosexual families (Flaks et al., 1995; Chan et al., 1998; Golombok, 1998, 2000, 2003; Hastings et al., 2006). Nonetheless, the belief that we should avoid assisting homosexual couples in having children is a popular one. Article - Compulsory education for reproductive and parental autonomy - L Bortolotti & D Cutas Delivered by Ingenta to: Swets IP : 192.87.50.3 Thu, 12 Nov 2009 12:30:37 A feature that is irrelevant to good parenting, whether a person is fertile and has a genetic link with the children, is often regarded as the ultimate line of demarcation for policy decisions about assistance and intervention in reproduction and parenting. If one’s interests in parenting are so compelling that interference is only legitimate as a last resort, then this consideration should apply equally to cases of natural and assisted reproduction. Indeed, the fact that those individuals who seek assistance to become parents are always in a position in which they act on a deliberate wish to become parents could be regarded as a reason to believe that their interests in parenting might be at least as strong and genuine as those of people who become parents naturally (sometimes not even explicitly wishing to). &XUUHQWSUDFWLFHVDUHLQQHHGRIHLWKHUDQHZMXVWLÀFDWLRQRUD revision because the inconsistency in standards of regulation WKDWZHKDYHKLJKOLJKWHGLVQRWPRUDOO\MXVWLÀDEOH7KHFOLPDWH of regulatory practices for prospective parents’ who need assistance in realizing their life goals, and the total lack of scrutiny for prospective parents who reproduce naturally, might reinforce uncritical beliefs about the distribution of reproductive rights, suitable life plans and criteria for good parenting. Current SUDFWLFHVLQYLWHXVWRWKLQN ZLWKRXWMXVWLÀFDWLRQ WKDWZKHUHDV ‘non-natural’ prospective parents need to prove themselves and SURYLGHWRWKHPVHOYHVDQGRWKHUVDMXVWLÀFDWLRQIRUWKHLUFKRLFH to become parents, the same choice by ‘natural’ prospective parents does not need to be subject to the same level of public scrutiny and personal critical examination. The message drawn from attitudes and policies to reproduction and parenting might affect the extent to which reproduction and parenting are seen as part of an individual life plan and as objectives to pursue within an individual self-narrative. In particular, the fact that one can conceive naturally is mistakenly regarded as conferring legitimacy to reproductive and parental choices by default. There is more. In many heterogeneous societal contexts, the possibility of conceiving is regarded as a prima facie duty to do so, to oneself and the rest of society. We shall turn to this thought in the next section. The stigma of childlessness $OWKRXJK IHUWLOLW\ KDV GURSSHG LQ DIÁXHQW FRXQWULHV GXH WR the availability of contraception and a change in attitudes towards reproduction, which is seen as a choice and not a duty, popular culture surrounding reproduction places heavy pressures on women and men to become parents (e.g. Reynolds, 1991, Unnithan-Kumar, 2004). This phenomenon has been noted widely, so that support groups have been created for childless people (women in particular) who feel excluded and discriminated from some sectors of society (including, in the UK, Kidding Aside –the British Childfree Association – and the London branch of No Kidding). There are other signals of a pro-reproductive culture: the celebrity ‘bump watch’ in the popular press is followed with trepidation. Successful childless actors or business-people past their thirties are routinely asked in interviews why they are not yet parents and may feel they need to answer in a way that suggests that parenthood is the next item on the agenda. Or they apologize for WKHLUHYLGHQWVHOÀVKQHVV,QDQDUWLFOHRQWKHQHZJHQHUDWLRQRI ROGHUÀUVWWLPHPRWKHUV%ULVFRH  PHQWLRQVWKHUHJUHWZLWK Ethics, Bioscience and Life, Vol. 4, No. 2, July 2009 which some women see the decline of their fertility and quotes the cartoon of a crying woman saying ‘Oh my God, I forgot to have children’. In a work on the notion of lesbian motherhood, Lewin (1993, p.191) writes that the narratives of lesbian and heterosexual mothers repeatedly suggest ‘that motherhood and ZRPDQKRRGFRQWLQXHWREHFRQÁDWHGDQGPXWXDOO\GHÀQHG·DQG that the failure to reproduce is often perceived as a failure to achieve one’s ‘natural’ potential. The message from organized religions is that one needs to have D JRRG MXVWLÀFDWLRQ QRW WR EHFRPH D SDUHQW ,Q D SHULRGLFDO for Christian women, Van Leeuwen (2003, p.24) writes: ‘What’s unusual is the choice never to have children. Couples contemplating this decision need to ask themselves what their motives are. Are they being self-indulgent or making an idol of career or money?’ In a blog dedicated to Mormons, an anonymous contributor explains the situation in which he and his wife found themselves: “We’ve been married for almost six years and we still have no children. This is a source of some sadness and great deal RIGLVDSSRLQWPHQWWRXVZHÀUVWVWDUWHGWU\LQJWRJHWSUHJQDQW a couple of months after we were married. And yet here we are. […] For the time being, we are forced to simply accept our situation. One part of that situation is the strange way that we are treated by many other Mormons. […] Others in our community frequently assign motivations for our childlessness. Some assume that we are childless so that we can travel. […] 2WKHUVLPDJLQHWKDWZHKDYHÀQDQFLDOPRWLYDWLRQVIRUGHOD\LQJ ¶VWDUWLQJDIDPLO\·RUWKDWZHDUHZDLWLQJXQWLO,ÀQLVKJUDGXDWH school. Not infrequently, people suppose that one or both of us dislike children.” Not only is childlessness stereotyped as a character failure RUDPDQLIHVWDWLRQRIVHOÀVKQHVVDQGLPPDWXULW\EXWWKHUHLV the evidence that both in the USA and in the UK, the link between not reproducing and using contraceptives is also unclear to people having to face reproductive choices. Bledsoe (1996) conducted a comparative study on attitudes towards contraception and fertility in the USA and in Gambia in the 1980s and 1990s. She found that the current reproductive culture in America is full of contradictions. Low fertility can be explained by the availability of contraceptive choices, but this causal link is not openly acknowledged in the public perception of the role of contraceptives and in the available literature on reproduction and fertility (with the exception of some academic texts). In her study, Bledsoe found that women seemed to be have more serious concerns about failing to reproduce than about the possibility of having too many children (apart from minority groups, such as teenage mothers) and that they often did not see contraception as a way of limiting reproduction but as a way of managing their UHODWLRQVKLSV 7KLV VHHPV FRQVLVWHQW ZLWK %OHGVRH·V ÀQGLQJ that periodicals and trade books on contraception in the USA are dominated by discussions of infertility and side-effects DQGQRWE\WKHEHQHÀWVRIWKHXVHRIFRQWUDFHSWLYHVRUE\WKHLU ensuring some form of control over reproduction. The lack of acknowledgement of the link between contraception and falling number of children seems to have serious consequences for reproductive trends: in the USA, the number of unintended pregnancies remains very high (Brown and Eisenberg, 1995). In the UK, similar phenomena are observed, 9 Article - Compulsory education for reproductive and parental autonomy - L Bortolotti & D Cutas judging from a recent study by Lakha and Glasier (2006) according to which one in three pregnancies in Scotland is unintended and emergency contraception is very rarely used. Delivered by Ingenta to: Swets IP : 192.87.50.3 Thu, 12 Nov 2009 12:30:37 Morgan (1989) summarizes the current pro-reproductive culture in a very effective way: women who are infertile are diseased DQGWKRVHZKRFKRRVHWREHFKLOGOHVVDUHVHOÀVKRUFUD]\9HHYHUV (1980, p.7) who interviews women without children and gains XVHIXOLQVLJKWVE\UHÁHFWLQJRQWKHLUH[SHULHQFHVVKRZVWKDWWKH stereotype of the childless woman is that she is ‘psychologically PDODGMXVWHG HPRWLRQDOO\ LPPDWXUH LPPRUDO VHOÀVK ORQHO\ XQKDSS\ XQIXOÀOOHG VH[XDOO\ LQDGHTXDWH XQKDSSLO\ PDUULHG and prone to divorce’. Reti (1992, p.1) begins her argument on the social status of women’s childlessness with the following words: ‘Childless. Child-free. Nullipara. Not-Mothers. Even language fails us, we women who have chosen not to have children. We live in the negative, always on the defensive’. Lisle (1996, p.8) writes: “… few of us still dare to speak openly about our real reasons for refusing to breed. We are afraid to challenge the view of motherhood as the essential female experience. An uneasy silence exists between mothers and non-mothers, since we seldom talk about the motives for our reproductive behaviour or the realities of our daily lives. […] Certainly many of the nulliparas and nulligravidous women whom I interviewed had never talked in depth about non-motherhood before, and their speech was as often painfully hesitant as quietly triumphant.” Pressure on women to become mothers is well documented. According to women’s psychiatrist Dr Nada Stotland, ‘[p]eople keep asking childless women why they are childless, whether they plan to remain childless, how they feel about being childless, and they warn them that they are going to be lonely in their old age’ (Rhodes, 2003). For a more recent example, the case of the book published in 2007 by Corrine Maier in France, No Kid [40 Reasons Not to Have Children] is telling: the publication of this bestseller has generated an impressive array of vehement reactions from parents in France and abroad. What are the consequences of these attitudes towards childlessness and this selective and value-laden attention of the media and popular culture with respect to reproductive choices and contraception? Again, the risk is that people might doubt themselves when either their preferences or their considered SODQV DUH LQ FRQÁLFW ZLWK ZKDW LV SHUFHLYHG DV DFFHSWDEOH E\ VRFLHW\ )XUWKHU UHÁHFWLRQ RQ WKHLU SUHIHUHQFHV DQG SODQV and support for their exercising their autonomous choices can be promoted by: (i) a critical attitude which leads to the recognition of biases in the way in which information about reproduction and parenting is presented; and (ii) the acquisition RIVFLHQWLÀFDOO\UHVSHFWDEOHLQIRUPDWLRQDERXWZKLFKSUDFWLFHV affect reproduction and which practices contribute to good parenting. Acquiring this information and critically examining LWVYDOLGLW\FDQEHWKHÀUVWVWHSVWRWKHGHYHORSPHQWRIDPRUH UHÁHFWLYHDWWLWXGHWRZDUGVSUDFWLFHVWKDWDUHHLWKHUHQFRXUDJHG or stigmatized by society. They can also sustain autonomous life choices. The best way to make sure that this information is widely available, and that the people providing it are competent to do so, is to integrate education on reproduction and parenting in the national curriculum. 10 Ethics, Bioscience and Life, Vol. 4, No. 2, July 2009 Education as an antidote to uncritically held beliefs 7KH EHVW SODFH WR ÀJKW SUHMXGLFHV EDVHG RQ PLVLQIRUPDWLRQ has always been the classroom. In this paper we do not aim to describe in detail the form that parental education should take: we lack the necessary pedagogical expertise to do so. Rather, we argue for the following theses: (i) Education on reproduction and parenting is needed, given a certain account of what is required for the responsible exercise of reproductive and parental autonomy, the presence of widespread beliefs about the asymmetry between natural and assisted reproduction and about the inadequacy of childlessness. (ii) Education on reproduction and parenting should be available to everybody at an early age and integrated systematically in the existing curriculum, rather than being offered exclusively to those agents who have already made the decision to become parents (in prenatal classes) or to parents who actively seek KHOSEHFDXVHRIGLIÀFXOWLHVLQPDQDJLQJWKHLUFKLOGUHQ (iii) Education on reproduction and parenting should provide accessible information based on recent empirical evidence on good parenting and should promote the development of both a critical attitude towards general claims about reproduction DQG SDUHQWLQJ DQG SHUVRQDO UHÁHFWLRQ RQ WKH LPSOLFDWLRQV RI reproductive and parenting choices on life goals. We realize that our proposal would require a revision of current practices which we have not discussed here in any detail, but we hope that consultation with public and experts will help develop some of the most concrete aspects of the provision of education on reproduction and parenting. For instance, the decision whether or not education on reproduction and parenting should have priority over other subjects in an already crowded curriculum depends on many factors, including the harm that can be prevented by implementing parental education, its potential impact on the population and its value relative to other subjects. Another practical issue is whether the sharing of relevant information on reproduction and parenting, and the discussion to be led on these themes should be a separate item on the curriculum or be included in a series of seminar sessions where young adults are supported in the responsible exercise of autonomous choice in an empirically informed, argumentatively rigorous and non-dogmatic way (e.g. how to exercise freedom of speech or the right to vote). The issues that should be brought to the attention of students and at which age should also be determined with care. The feedback obtained from evaluations of previous pilot studies on education on personal relationships and parenting (e.g. Hope and Sharland, 1988) might be a good resource for this purpose. 7KHHOHPHQWVRIWKHSURUHSURGXFWLYHFXOWXUHEULHÁ\UHYLHZHG above indicate the type of societal pressure that might be exercised on people thinking about reproductive and parental choices. In the current climate, regulation of the access to UHSURGXFWLRQ DQG SDUHQWLQJ LV LQFRQVLVWHQW DQG EDGO\ MXVWLÀHG and, in spite of the acquired means of controlling reproduction, RQHFDQIHHOMXGJHGE\RWKHUVDVLQFRPSOHWHVHOÀVKRULPPDWXUH if one abstains from parenthood. In this context, the choice of ZKHWKHU WR EHFRPH D SDUHQW PLJKW EH LQÁXHQFHG E\ H[WHUQDO Article - Compulsory education for reproductive and parental autonomy - L Bortolotti & D Cutas factors that have not been critically examined. Autonomy, as we saw, is also about assessing reasons for the decisions that one is considering taking. That is why some information about reproduction and parenting which is likely to affect the formation of beliefs, desires and plans concerning reproduction and parenting is central to the responsible exercise of autonomy. Delivered by Ingenta to: Swets IP : 192.87.50.3 Thu, 12 Nov 2009 12:30:37 There is no good reason why agents who intend or need to use assistance in reproduction (e.g. adoption or medical technologies) ought to doubt their self-worth and competence as parents because of the pressure of the body of existing regulations to which they are routinely subjected. Agents who do not see parenthood as part of their life projects ought not to accommodate children into their lives by planning reproduction or continuing unplanned pregnancies only because they feel they will be judged negatively LIWKH\GHFLGHGWRDFWGLIIHUHQWO\RUEHFDXVHWKH\GHVLUHWR¶ÀWLQ· and stop being perceived as a problem. Apart from the classical objections from the feminist movement, objections to a culture that encourages one to have children as a way to adulthood or to maturity are rarely expressed. Education could encourage agents to examine the costs and responsibilities of becoming a parent before making the decision to reproduce. Why do we argue for compulsory education rather than the promotion of the accessibility of other sources of parenting information, which is already available? The issue is that some of the most accessible information is not necessarily reliable RUSUHVHQWHGLQVXFKDZD\DVWRLQYLWHIXUWKHUUHÁHFWLRQRUWKH development of a critical attitude towards unsupported beliefs. Television programmes on how to manage one’s family and deal ZLWK GLIÀFXOW FKLOGUHQ DERXQG EXW VHQG FRQÁLFWLQJ PHVVDJHV At the same time, they leave untouched, and often support, the idea that there is some sort of parental authority (e.g. that parents know what is good for their children) and they emphasize the importance of expert advice (e.g. a behavioural psychologist might have useful tips on how to tackle aggression in children). Although there is worth in bringing to the fore the issues about parenting that might have been not properly acknowledged in the past, widespread beliefs about what would make a good parent are more often founded on unexamined assumptions or HQWHUWDLQPHQWYDOXHUDWKHUWKDQUHÁHFWLRQRQDQGGLVFXVVLRQRIWKH available empirical evidence. The role of evidence is to prompt a re-examination of uncritically held beliefs: parenting skills are not innate and do not happen to be bestowed by default on the individuals who choose or happen to become parents. Parents might not know what is good for their children, however good their intentions are, and that is why they should be encouraged to seek professional advice on how to bring up their children. Examples of practices that are not necessarily ill intentioned, but have negative effects on the wellbeing of children and the parent– child relationship, include child beating as a form of discipline, overfeeding, overdressing, imposing one’s expectations on offspring and continuing abusive relationships with the other parent ‘for the children’s sake’. Education could be an answer to the absence of authoritative directions on what makes for good SDUHQWLQJRUIRUDZKHUHSHRSOHFDQH[SUHVVWKHLUYLHZVDQGUHÁHFW on any reliable and accessible information. To sum up, the current pro-reproductive culture can have negative effects on the authenticity and competence that are necessary for the exercise of autonomy in the choices that people make. It encourages agents to embrace beliefs that do not stand UDWLRQDO VFUXWLQ\ DQG WKDW FRXOG QRW EH DXWKRUHG DQG MXVWLÀHG Ethics, Bioscience and Life, Vol. 4, No. 2, July 2009 on the basis of the agents’ best reasons. The implementation of parental education would help counteract ignorance and uncritically held beliefs and could have a number of positive consequences: (i) encourage agents to think carefully about their reproductive and parenting choices, which would increase their potential for genuinely autonomous choices; (ii) support UHVSRQVLEOHLQGLYLGXDOVLQWKHLGHQWLÀFDWLRQDQGDFTXLVLWLRQRI essential parenting skills; (iii) counter unfortunate myths, such as the thought that divorce harms children more than their being LQ D KRXVHKROG ZKHUH WKHUH DUH UHJXODU FRQÁLFWV LY  PDNH LW more likely that agents accept professional advice in parenting, by challenging the belief that having children is a private matter; and (v) promote more respectful attitudes towards children, adults who cannot reproduce naturally and those who decide not to reproduce. Issues that would be open for enquiry and discussion in the context of education on reproduction and parenting include the issues we have presented here, namely: (i) nobody should be expected to become a parent; (ii) failing to become a parent is not a failure to achieve maturity; (iii) parenting is not the prerogative of an individual, or the means to achieving personal IXOÀOPHQW ZKHQ RWKHU DVSHFWV RI RQH·V OLIH DUH OHVV WKDQ satisfactory; and (iv) the choice to become a parent is the choice of entering a complex long-term relationship which carries serious obligations and should be made responsibly. Objections to the proposal Here we shall consider and respond to some common objections to our proposal. Information is already available Prospective parents are already given the essential information WKH\QHHG HJLQIRUPDWLRQOHDÁHWVSUHQDWDOFODVVHV 6RZKDW more do we need? Indeed, prenatal classes are an important contribution to making future parents aware of their new role and of the way in which their lives will change when they do become parents. +RZHYHUWKH\DUHQRWVXIÀFLHQWWRVXSSRUWDXWRQRPRXVFKRLFHV about reproduction and parenting. Prenatal classes are not compulsory and take place when many reproductive choices have already been made. Moreover, they affect only those agents who are soon to become parents, rather than the whole community. Information about personal relationships, about what is good for children and about what parenting involves ZRXOGEHQHÀWHYHU\ERG\DQGQRWRQO\WKRVHSHRSOHZKRKDYH already conceived. Parenting cannot be taught A common argument is that parenting is a know-how and not a know-that skill, that parenting classes could not help people to acquire the required skills. So, would parenting classes therefore be (close to) useless? This objection fails to weaken the case for compulsory parenthood education. The quality of parenting does not depend exclusively upon the agent’s character and dispositions. Reliable information about what is likely to contribute to 11 Article - Compulsory education for reproductive and parental autonomy - L Bortolotti & D Cutas successful personal relationships and good parenting is relevant to making informed choices and to becoming good parents. The consequence of the view that the parent–child relationship is a private matter is that parents are not proactive in the search for relevant information and will be often left unsupported in moments of need. Relationship and parenting classes do not need to be wholly theoretical: they could include practical sessions where students are required to interact with children, which would be useful for all students, whether or not they decide to reproduce. This might provide more of a know-how skill at a moment before that of actually having to cope alone with a growing child. Courses could be interactive and specialists from various professions (social workers, teachers, child psychologists, family lawyers, paediatricians, nutritionists, etc.) could be invited to share their professional expertise and experiences. This would expose the students to more comprehensive information and a wider array of resources and methodologies. Delivered by Ingenta to: Swets IP : 192.87.50.3 Thu, 12 Nov 2009 12:30:37 Inaccurate information could be given Another objection is that there are many things that we still don’t know about what works best for children; the results of some studies counter the results of other studies. So, is there any point in teaching controversial claims that are likely to be rebutted in the future? Science is fallible, but it is better to have access to a body of information that is largely reliable than to remain in ignorance about the facts that have already been established. There are still grey areas in an account of perfectly functional parenting. However, there is core knowledge about what seriously harms children. In many cases, these harms ensue from widespread practices, even within the developed world where education is more accessible. For instance, many parents still withhold the WUXWKIURPWKHLUDGRSWHGFKLOGUHQKRSLQJWKDWWKH\ZLOOÀQGLW HDVLHUWRFRPSUHKHQGWKHVLJQLÀFDQFHRIWKHLQIRUPDWLRQJLYHQ when they are older. Others struggle with choices about how to care for their children and, without support, they are expected to discriminate between empirically informed and sensible advice and myths. The range of popular online fora where people give and take advice about parenting is proof of well-meaning adults WU\LQJWRÀJXUHRXWZKDWWRGRDQGZKDWQRWWRGRLQEULQJLQJ up their offspring. 7KHIDFWWKDWWKHUHDUHFRQÁLFWLQJUHVXOWVLQWKHHPSLULFDOGDWD as to what works best or what harms children does not speak against our proposal of promoting classes on good parenting as DZD\WRHQKDQFHDXWRQRP\ZKHWKHUWKHUHDUHGHÀQLWHDQVZHUV or not, students can still be given the available information and be invited to come up with explanations for the apparent inconsistencies. This would be a perfect occasion to develop their critical attitude and the reasoning and debating skills of teachers and students. Education is not a universal panacea 12 This is a well-known type of objection: parental education, however well thought out, will not solve the problem of neglect or abuse. So, what about the people who do not intend to be or who cannot be good parents? Ethics, Bioscience and Life, Vol. 4, No. 2, July 2009 This is an easy objection to just about everything: convicting FULPLQDOVZLOOQRWVWRSFULPHHQIRUFLQJÀVFDOUHJXODWLRQZLOO not stop organized fraud and enforcing parental education will not eliminate parental abuse. It is indeed unlikely that education on personal relationships and parenting will turn psychopaths into loving parents or that it will turn whose who are resistant to acquiring new information in general into people who would go a long way to ensure that their parental decisions are adequately informed. However, this objection does not undermine the reasons for supporting our proposal. In relation to the exercise of autonomy in reproductive choices and the occurrence of neglect and abuse in parenting, there seem to be further reasons to support education. We have room here to list only two. The more that agents become aware of their reproductive options and of the dramatic effects of parenting on life patterns, the less will they be tempted to think that having children is advisable as a way to manage personal relationships or to help themselves or their partners to ‘settle down’. As agents become more aware of the damage that neglect and abuse can cause on children, they might become less tolerant with other people’s ‘mistakes’ and be more likely to report misbehaviour. Notice that we have done nothing in this paper to argue that education on reproduction and parenting will stop or even VLJQLÀFDQWO\ UHGXFH DEXVH 2XU DUJXPHQW KDV EHHQ WKDW WKH exercise of the reproductive and parenting autonomy can be better supported by systematic and early access to reliable information DQG E\ WKH FUHDWLRQ RI RSSRUWXQLWLHV IRU UHÁHFWLRQ DQG GHEDWH We expect that the implementation of our suggestion will have a positive effect on children’s wellbeing in the long run. Parental education is but one important subject The study of subjects in school is thought to convey necessary information and to promote useful skills. Parental education would be another subject and could be a good thing. But why should we make it compulsory? Arguably, knowing the available reproductive and parental options and learning what makes good parenting are more important for future adults than the other subjects that are currently taught as part of compulsory education. Not knowing about how to manage one’s relationship and avoid unintended pregnancies, for instance, can have more pervasive and more serious consequences than failing to make complicated calculations or ignoring world geography. Another objection to compulsory parental education is that institutions could force the acquisition of information on children and infringe parental autonomy with respect to their children’s education. Shouldn’t parents be able to opt out of such classes? The concern here is that delivering information at a later stage, in teenage years, would limit the choice of subjects and infringe upon their autonomy. These are reasonable concerns that we cannot adequately respond to within the scope of this paper, as they address more general issues: the limits of parental autonomy and the extent to which societal institutions can GHPDQGWKDWWKHWLPHRILQGLYLGXDOVEHVSHQWLQVSHFLÀFZD\V Article - Compulsory education for reproductive and parental autonomy - L Bortolotti & D Cutas Society demands that we obtain a driving licence before we drive vehicles in public roads and that we learn how to read, write and acquire other ‘basic’ skills. To some extent, it is open to debate which skills are basic, that is, essential for productive interactions with other people and institutions, necessary for us to make a living and contribute to society, or central to the exercise of our autonomy as citizens. Here we just comment that, although it is plausible that parents should be allowed to make some decisions for their children, it is very controversial whether they should be allowed to make decisions for their children that are not in their interests. This point is often discussed in the context of medical assistance DQGWKHUDS\EXWDOVRLQVSHFLÀFHGXFDWLRQDOFRQWH[WVVXFKDV the permissibility for a child to go through the school system ZLWKRXWEHLQJWDXJKWHYROXWLRQDU\WKHRU\GXHWRFRQÁLFWVZLWK parents’ religious beliefs. Delivered by Ingenta to: Swets IP : 192.87.50.3 Thu, 12 Nov 2009 12:30:37 Support from other policies and public opinions Returning to the core of the argument, the exercise of reproductive and parental autonomy of choice in adults in general, and prospective parents in particular, needs to be supported. :LWKLQDSURUHSURGXFWLYHFXOWXUHZKHUHDVVXPSWLRQVDERXWÀW parenting and childlessness are often uncritically made, reliable sources of information need to be widely available. In policy and public opinion, there seems to be a general move towards the acceptance of the idea that sex, relationships and parenting should be subjects that are addressed in schools. )ROORZLQJDUHSRUWE\2IÀFHIRU6WDQGDUGVLQ(GXFDWLRQLQ on the limitations of Personal, Social and Health Education in secondary schools in the UK, Smith (2006) reported the results of a survey among teenage girls who asked for better quality classes on sex and relationships and for these classes to be made compulsory. On that occasion, the need for training teachers on how to tackle sensitive issues in the classroom and for making Personal, Social and Health Education a central part of the national curriculum was also stressed by sexual health charities for teenagers. More recently, following a review of the school minister highlighting the lack of training for teachers providing sex education, BBC (2008) published the results of a survey of primary and secondary school teachers, from which it emerged that teachers wanted sex education to be compulsory for younger children too. The main arguments in support of this move were of two kinds: an argument from the exercise of autonomy; and a consequentialist argument that the provision of sex and relationship education would reduce the number of teenage pregnancies. The case for compulsory parental education could be made on similar bases. In the learning objectives of Personal, Social and Health Education, issues about parenting have a very marginal role, but the choice of becoming a parent is not less important or less life-changing than choices about sex and relationships (where these choices can be kept apart at all) and the consequences of unintended reproduction or bad parenting are not less morally relevant than the consequences of having sex and managing UHODWLRQVKLSVLQDQXQVXSSRUWHGDQGXQUHÁHFWLYHZD\ Ethics, Bioscience and Life, Vol. 4, No. 2, July 2009 Conclusion In this paper we have argued that, granted that individuals enjoy reproductive autonomy, they should be given the resources to make informed decisions about the course that their lives can take by being in a position to critically examine widely shared and often unsupported beliefs about reproduction and parenting. There are several reasons why compulsory education envisaged KHUH FDQ EH EHQHÀFLDO WR LQGLYLGXDO FLWL]HQV DQG WR VRFLHW\ LQ general. The point emphasized here is that individual choices about whether to become a parent are more likely to be guided by an understanding of parental responsibilities if reliable information is available. Moreover, education makes it more likely that individual choices about how to parent will be informed by an appreciation of the factors that contribute most to the wellbeing of both oneself as a potential parent and the potential children. We have argued that compulsory parental education would EH EHQHÀFLDO WR DOO PHPEHUV RI VRFLHW\ ZLWKRXW EHLQJ RYHUO\ intrusive. It would promote critical evaluation of popular myths about parenting and would also support a journey of selfdiscovery that could enhance the exercise of autonomous life choices in all areas of life. Acknowledgements The authors are grateful to Heather Widdows for discussion on reproductive rights and the inconsistencies of regulation in natural and assisted reproduction and to two anonymous referees for constructive criticism. References Baker LR 2000 Persons and Bodies: A Constitution View. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. BBC 2008 Call for compulsory sex education. Available at http:// news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7263247.stm [accessed 4 February 2009]. Bledsoe C 1996 Contraception and ‘natural’ fertility in America. Population and Development Review 22 (Suppl.), 297–324. Boethius C 1985 Sex Education in Swedish schools: the facts and the ÀFWLRQFamily Planning Perspectives 17, 276–279. Bortolotti L, Broome MR 2008 Delusional Beliefs and Reason Giving. Philosophical Psychology 21, 801–821. Brabazon T 2001 The spectre of the spinster: Bette Davis and the epistemology of the shelf. Senses of Cinema 13. Available at www. sensesofcinema.com/contents/01/13/spinster.html [accessed 4 February 2009]. Briscoe J 2003 The generation that took a gamble. The Guardian, 13 September 2003. Available at www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/ sep/13/gender.health [accessed 4 February 2009]. Brown S, Eisenberg L (eds) 1995 The Best Intentions. Unintended Pregnancy and the Wellbeing of Children and Families. Committee on Unintended Pregnancy, Institute of Medicine, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC. Chan RW Raboy B, Patterson CJ 1998 Psychosocial adjustment among children conceived via donor insemination by lesbian and heterosexual mothers. Child Development 69, 443–457. Cutas D 2009 Sex is overrated: on the right to reproduce. Human Fertility 12, 45–52. Dworkin G 1988 The Theory and Practice of Autonomy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p. 20. 13 Delivered by Ingenta to: Swets IP : 192.87.50.3 Thu, 12 Nov 2009 12:30:37 Article - Compulsory education for reproductive and parental autonomy - L Bortolotti & D Cutas 14 Feinberg J 1986 Harm to Self. Oxford University Press, New York, p. 33. Ferrero L 2003 An elusive challenge to the authorship account. Philosophical Psychology 16, 565–567. Fischer J, Ravazza M (eds) 1993 Perspectives on Moral Responsibility. Cornell University Press, Ithaca and London. Flaks D, Fisher I, Masterpasqua F, Joseph G 1995 Lesbians choosing motherhood: a comparative study of lesbian and heterosexual parents and their children. Developmental Psychology 31, 105–114. Golombok S 1998 New families, old values: considerations regarding the welfare of the child, Human Reproduction 13, 2342–2347. Golombok S 2000 Parenting: What Really Counts? Routledge, London. Golombok S, Perry B, Burston A et al. 2003 Children with lesbian parents: a community study. Developmental Psychology 39, 20–33. Hastings P, Vyncke J, Sullivan C et al. 2006 Children’s Development of Social Competence across Family Types. Study commissioned by the Canadian Government in 2003 and presented to the Family, Children and Youth Section, Department of Justice Canada. Hope P and Sharland P (eds) 1988 Tomorrow’s Parents. Developing Parenthood Education in Schools. Calouste Gulberkian Foundation, London. LaFollette H 1982 A reply to Frisch. Philosophy and Public Affairs 11, 181–183. LaFollette H 1980 Licensing parents. Philosophy and Public Affairs 9, 182–197. Lakha F, Glasier A 2006 Unintended pregnancy and use of emergency contraception among a large cohort of women attending for antenatal care or abortion in Scotland. Lancet 368, 1782–1787. /DZORU.(OXVLYHUHDVRQVDSUREOHPIRUÀUVWSHUVRQDXWKRULW\ Philosophical Psychology 16, 549–564. Lenman J 2009 The politics of the self: stability, normativity and the lives we can live with living. In: Bortolotti L (ed.) Philosophy and Happiness. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke. Lewin E 1993 Lesbian Mothers: Accounts of Gender in American Culture. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, p. 191. Lisle L 1996 Without Child: Challenging the Stigma of Childlessness. Random House of Canada, Toronto, p. 8. Maier C 2007 No Kid: Quarante Raisons De ne Pas Avoir D’Enfants. Michalon, Paris. McAdams D 1993 The Stories We Live by: Personal Myths and the Making of the Self. Guilford Press, New York. McLeod C 2002 Self-Trust and Reproductive Autonomy. MIT Press, Cambridge MA, p. 103. Mele A 2001 Autonomous Agents: From Self-Control to Autonomy. Oxford University Press, New York. Moran R 2001 Authority and Estrangement: An Essay on Selfknowledge. Princeton University Press, Woodstock, pp. 60–79. Morgan KP 1989 Of Woman born? How old-fashioned! New reproductive technologies and women’s oppression. In: Overall C (ed.) The Future of Reproduction. Women’s Press, Toronto. O’Neill O 2002 Autonomy and Trust in Bioethics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Reti I (ed.) 1992 Childless by Choice: A Feminist Anthology. McNaughton and Gunn, Santa Cruz, CA, p. 1. Reynolds V 1991 Socioecology of religion. In: Maxwell M (ed.) The Sociobiological Imagination. SUNY Press, New York, pp. 205–222. Rhodes M 2003 Happy and child-free. The Scotsman, 13 September 2003. Available at http://living.scotsman.com/ViewArticle. aspx?articleid=2461246 [accessed 5 February 2009]. Roasted Tomatoes 2005 Childless. Latter-day Saint Liberation Front. Available at: http://ldsliberationfront.net/ [accessed November 2008]. Smith A 2006 Teenage girls call for compulsory sex education. Guardian, 28 February 2006. Available at www.guardian.co.uk/ society/2006/feb/28/health.sexeducation [accessed 5 February 2009]. The Local 2008 Kid-friendly Sweden aims to better record with parenting classes. 7 January 2008. Available at www.thelocal. se/9584/ [accessed 5 February 2009]. Ethics, Bioscience and Life, Vol. 4, No. 2, July 2009 Tiberius V 2008 Self-awareness. In: Tiberius V 7KH5HÁHFWLYH/LIH. Oxford University Press, New York. Tittle P 2004 Should Parents be Licensed? Debating the Issues. Prometheus Books, New York. Trost J, Bergstrom-Walan M 1997–2001 Sweden. In: Francoeur R (ed.) The International Encyclopedia of Sexuality I–IV. Continuum, New York. Available at www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/ IES/index.html [accessed 5 February 2009]. Unnithan-Kumar M 2004 Reproductive Agency, Medicine and the State: Cultural Transformation in Childbearing. Berghahn Books, Oxford. Van Leeuwen RC 2003 Is it all right for a married couple to choose to remain childless? Today’s Christian Woman 25, 24. Available at: www.christianitytoday.com/tcw/2003/sepoct/20.24.html [accessed 5 February 2009]. Veevers JE 1980 Childless by Choice. Butterworth and Co, Toronto, p. 7. Velleman D 2006 Self to Self. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Westman JC 1994 Licensing Parents. Can We Prevent Child Abuse and Neglect? Perseus Publishing, Cambridge, MA. :LOOLDPV%7KH0DNURSRXORVFDVHUHÁHFWLRQVRQWKHWHGLXP of immortality. In: Williams B Problems of the Self. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 82–100. Wolf S 1990 Freedom Within Reason. Oxford University Press, New York. 'HFODUDWLRQ7KHDXWKRUVUHSRUWQRÀQDQFLDORUFRPPHUFLDOFRQÁLFWV of interest. Received 15 May 2008; refereed 19 November 2008; accepted 23 February 2009.