Graduate studies at Western
Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 16 (1):55-70 (2013)
|Abstract||Abstract It is common practice to regard participants in assisted and collaborative reproduction (gamete donors, embryologists, fertility doctors, etc.) as simply providing a desired biological product or medical service. These agents are not procreators in the ordinary sense, nor do they stand in any kind of meaningful parental relation to the resulting offspring. This paper challenges the common view by defending a principle of procreative responsibility and then demonstrating that this standard applies as much to those who provide reproductive assistance in the form of medical services or gametes, as it does to coital reproducers or intending parents. Drawing on vocabulary from the common law tradition, I suggest that it may be helpful to refer to the various participants in assisted and collaborative reproduction (ACR) as accessories to procreation. Referring to the participants in ACR as accessories to procreation highlights the fact that these agents are not just providing medical services or products. They are participating in a supply chain designed to bring about new persons. I conclude by arguing that regulative standards in the fertility industry should be structured such that they permit, facilitate, and encourage agents to satisfy the requirements of procreative responsibility. Content Type Journal Article Pages 1-16 DOI 10.1007/s10677-011-9330-7 Authors Melissa Seymour Fahmy, Department of Philosophy, University of Georgia, 107 Peabody Hall, Athens, GA 30602, USA Journal Ethical Theory and Moral Practice Online ISSN 1572-8447 Print ISSN 1386-2820|
|Keywords||Procreation Responsibility Assisted Reproduction Collaborative Reproduction Gamete Donation|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Signe Mezinska, Ilze Mileiko & Aivita Putnina (2012). Sharing Responsibility in Gamete Donation: Balancing Relations and New Knowledge in Latvia. Medicine Studies 3 (3):185-196.
Carmel Shalev (2012). An Ethic of Care and Responsibility: Reflections on Third-Party Reproduction. Medicine Studies 3 (3):147-156.
Beatrice Ioan & Vasile Astarastoae (2013). Ethical and Legal Aspects in Medically Assisted Human Reproduction in Romania. Human Reproduction and Genetic Ethics 14 (2):4 - 13.
Anne Donchin (2011). In Whose Interest? Policy and Politics in Assisted Reproduction. Bioethics 25 (2):92-101.
Maura Anne Ryan (1995). The New Reproductive Technologies: Defying God's Dominion? Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 20 (4):419-438.
Godfrey B. Tangwa (2008). Third Party Assisted Conception: An African Perspective. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 29 (5):297-306.
Melissa Seymour Fahmy (2011). On the Supposed Moral Harm of Selecting for Deafness. Bioethics 25 (3):128-136.
Thomas Søbirk Petersen (2004). A Woman's Choice? On Women, Assisted Reproduction and Social Coercion. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 7 (1):81 - 90.
Thomas Søbirk Petersen (2004). A Woman's Choice? – On Women, Assisted Reproduction and Social Coercion. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 7 (1):81-90.
Daniela Cutas & Lisa Bortolotti (2010). Natural Versus Assisted Reproduction. In Search of Fairness. Studies in Ethics, Law and Technology 4 (1).
Enrico Maestri (2011). Fabbriche Della Vita. La Critica Ecofemminista Alle Tecniche Riproduttive Artificiali. Ragion Pratica 37 (2):417-442.
L. Regan & E. James (1998). Ethical Dilemmas in Assisted Reproduction. Journal of Medical Ethics 24 (5):355-356.
B. Solberg (2009). Getting Beyond the Welfare of the Child in Assisted Reproduction. Journal of Medical Ethics 35 (6):373-376.
G. R. Dunstan (1990). Human Embryos: The Debate on Assisted Reproduction. Journal of Medical Ethics 16 (2):107-108.
Added to index2011-12-29
Total downloads27 ( #51,760 of 739,671 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #37,337 of 739,671 )
How can I increase my downloads?