Bioethics 30 (9):741-750 (2016)

Andrew Botterell
University of Western Ontario
According to Rivka Weinberg, gametes are like enriched uranium: both are hazardous materials. Exposing human beings to enriched uranium can result in radioactivity and decreased life expectancy, while exposing sperm and ova to each other can result in the creation of needy innocent persons with full moral status. Weinberg argues that when we engage in activities that put our gametes at risk of joining with others and growing into persons, we assume the costs of that risky activity. She calls this the Hazmat Theory of parental responsibility. The theory is novel and important, and has far-reaching consequences for the ethics of procreation, parenting, and population, implying among other things that that the only way to avoid acquiring parental responsibilities may be to “abstain from sexual intercourse or surgically interfere with our gamete-release system.” For these reasons the theory merits careful scrutiny. In this article I criticize the theory's account of how parental responsibility is acquired and its treatment of the standard of care expected of gamete possessors, and argue that it fails to properly account for a distinction between procreative costs and parental responsibility. Even if gametes are hazardous, it does not follow that parental responsibility in Weinberg's sense is acquired whenever one brings new persons into existence.
Keywords sperm donation  parenthood  procreation  gamete donation  parental responsibility  Hazmat Theory
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1111/bioe.12283
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 71,316
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

The Moral Complexity of Sperm Donation.Rivka Weinberg - 2008 - Bioethics 22 (3):166–178.
Rethinking the Moral Permissibility of Gamete Donation.Melissa Moschella - 2014 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 35 (6):421-440.
Sperm, Clinics, and Parenthood.Reuven Brandt - 2016 - Bioethics 30 (8):618-627.
How Do We Acquire Parental Rights?Joseph Millum - 2010 - Social Theory and Practice 36 (1):112-132.
The Meaning of Synthetic Gametes for Gay and Lesbian People and Bioethics Too.Timothy F. Murphy - 2013 - Journal of Medical Ethics (11):doi:10.1136/medethics-2013-10169.
Compensation for Gamete Donation: The Analogy with Jury Duty.Lynette Reid, Natalie Ram & R. Brown - 2007 - Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 16 (1):35-43.


Added to PP index

Total views
7 ( #1,071,713 of 2,519,324 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #407,861 of 2,519,324 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes