Search

Assisted reproduction often involves biological contributions by third parties such as egg/sperm donors, mitochondrial DNA donors, and surrogate mothers. However, these arrangements are also characterised by a biological relationship between the child and at least one intending parent. For example, one or both intending parents might use their own eggs/sperm in surrogacy, or an intending mother might conceive using donor sperm or gestate a donor embryo. What happens when this relationship is absent, as in the case of 'double‐donor surrogacy' arrangements (DDS)? Here, a child is conceived using both donor eggs and sperm, carried by a surrogate, and raised by the commissioning parents. In this paper, I critically examine proposals to allow DDS in the United Kingdom, and the intentionalist justification for treating this practice distinctly (morally and legally speaking) from private adoption. I argue that the intentionalist approach cannot plausibly justify such a distinction and that other approaches to moral parenthood are also unlikely to succeed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Human uterus transplantation (UTx)—the most radical and experimental of all current forms of assisted reproduction—gives rise to a range of complex ethical questions, including those related to individual safety, risk, and informed consent. I have argued elsewhere that the wider social impacts and implications of UTx provision must form part of a comprehensive ethical analysis. My socio‐moral critique of UTx provision has been responded to with a number of defences of possible public funding of UTx. In this paper I examine a select number of those defences. These include: that UTx provision would address harms and needs that already exist and as such have priority; that UTx provision is fully compatible with the needed reform of the procreative context in which it would be offered; that UTx provision would not necessarily involve legitimation or endorsement of what are widely agreed to be problematic pronatalist or geneticist norms; and that UTx provision is required as a matter of justice and consistency with other practices. Importantly, defenders are not proposing a ceteris paribus justification of UTx provision; nor do my responses to their arguments represent a comprehensive opposition to UTx. Rather, my more limited purpose here is to show that whatever other defences may be given of publicly funded UTx provision, those considered here do not ultimately succeed and therefore do not allay the concerns underpinning the original socio‐moral critique. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper I argue that current law and policy governing germline genetic modification are overly broad and in fact prohibit medical interventions normally considered unobjectionable. The root of the problem lies in the fact law and policy tend to espouse a near categorical ban on medical interventions that alter germline DNA. However, if we pay close attention to the biological mechanisms at play we see that many standard medical interventions result in alterations to DNA that can be transmitted to future generations. The correct focus of policy and regulation thus ought to be determining which kinds of transmissible genetic modifications ought to be permitted, and not whether they should be permitted at all. Given that the scientific classification of biological structures involved in the inheritance of traits is unlikely to be in itself ethically significant, ethicists ought to develop a definition of 'gene' fit for ethical purposes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The birth of the world's first genetically edited babies in 2018 provoked considerable ethical outrage. Nonetheless, many scientists and bioethicists now advocate the pursuit of clinical uses of human germline gene editing. Progress towards this goal will require research, including clinical trials where genetically edited embryos are implanted into a woman's uterus, gestated, and brought to term. This paper argues that such trials would likely conflict with the fundamental research ethical requirement of non‐exploitation. This is because they would expose people who are in a vulnerable situation to risks and burdens that are substantial and not obviously offset by compensating benefits. I consider how the potential for exploitation in such trials might be mitigated, arguing that a feasible and justifiable approach is not easily found. If this analysis is correct, there is a significant ethical obstacle on the path towards clinical use of human germline gene editing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The moral acceptability of anonymous gamete donation remains contested. Although the view that the value of parent–child relationships should not depend on genetic ties is "nearly axiomatic" among philosophers and bioethicists, one well‐known dissenter remains: David Velleman. I argue that most rebuttals to Velleman have simply talked past him because they have failed to understand his fundamental point—that donor conception is a violation of human dignity and as such is wrong even if it does not harm individuals. I challenge Velleman on his own terms by endorsing his metaphysical picture before showing that donor conception is not necessarily a violation of human dignity. I show this by arguing that gamete donation is held to a double standard of self‐knowledge. I develop an account of the self that recognizes that certain kinds of challenges to one's flourishing can contribute to an individual's strength and self‐knowledge. I defend my view against objections that genetic knowledge is categorically different from other ways of knowing oneself and I show that donor conception can respect human dignity as long as it meets certain conditions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In a recent article in this journal, Alex Mullock, Elizabeth Chloe Romanis and Dunja Begović provide an analysis of gestational surrogacy and uterus transplantation (UTx) from the perspective of those who may decide to act as gestational surrogates and womb donors, referred to as 'womb‐givers'. In this article, I advance two sets of claims aimed at critically engaging with some aspects of their analysis. Firstly, I argue that the expression 'womb‐givers' obscures the biologically, socially and politically salient issue that those who engage in these practices are primarily persons and women. My contention is that this is of substance in discussions of the burdens and benefits of gestational surrogacy and UTx, which need to consider the specific position that women occupy in society, and the hierarchies that mediate their lives, experiences and preferences. Second, I argue that, if one were to take seriously the experiences and preferences of the women who may engage in these practices, and their bodily autonomy, then gestational surrogacy and UTx should be regarded as biologically and sociopolitically incommensurable. Mullock et al. overlook important aspects of gestational surrogacy, such as the embodied nature of pregnancy and childbirth, the sociopolitical significance of these experiences, and the often‐oppressive social norms that shape them. Whilst biology is not destiny, I suggest that it is socially and politically 'sticky' when it comes to this significance and norms, especially within the sphere of reproduction. Towards the end of the article, I query the authors' conceptualisation of bodily autonomy and of the instruments that enable its respect and promotion. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In a recent article Thomas Douglas and Katrien Devolder propose a theory of genetic parenthood according to which a human child can have only two genetic human parents. I argue this theory is arbitrarily narrow and fails to account for cases such as hybrids, cloning, chimerism, twinning, parthenogenesis, mitochondrial replacement techniques, and more. I propose an alternate theory of genetic parenthood, one that is prima facie consistent with our commonsense intuitions about genetic parenthood and relevant to a right to procreative autonomy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]