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.