Search

The antiabortion movement is increasingly using ostensibly scientific measurements such as ‘fetal heartbeat’ and ‘fetal pain’ to provide ‘objective’ evidence of the moral status of fetuses. However, there is little knowledge on how clinicians conceptualise and operationalise the moral status of fetuses. We interviewed obstetrician/gynaecologists and neonatologists on this topic since their practice regularly includes clinical management of entities of the same gestational age. Contrary to our expectations, there was consensus among clinicians about conceptions of moral status regardless of specialty. First, clinicians tended to take a gradualist approach to moral status during pregnancy as they developed and viewed viability, the ability to live outside of the uterus, as morally significant. Second, in contrast to ‘fetal pain’ laws and philosophical discussions about the ethical salience of sentience, the clinicians in our study did not consider the ability to feel pain as a morally relevant factor in moral status determinations. Third, during previability and perviability, clinicians viewed moral status as a personal value decision, which should be made by pregnant people and parents of neonates.

According to Petersen, ‘the individualization argument against NMEF [nonmedical egg freezing]’ states: ‘it is morally wrong to let individuals use technology X [NMEF] – in order to try to handle a problem that is social in nature – if the use of X [NMEF] will somehow work against a social solution to a social problem P [gender inequality in the labor market]’. While there may be individuals making individualisation argument against NMEF, I do not read the scholars he discusses—Karey Harwood,1 2 Lynn Morgan, Janelle Taylor3 and Angel Petrapanagos4—as making this argument. These scholars agree with the premise of the individualisation argument that NMEF ‘is an individualistic and morally problematic solution to the social problems that women face’ (p. 4), but this does not mean that they agree with the conclusion ‘women should not use NMEF’ (p. 4). In fact, several admit that NMEF can be a good choice for some women; Petropanagos, for example, states ‘individual women may benefit from egg freezing to satisfy their reproductive desires’.4 In this commentary, I argue that Petersen incorrectly reduces these scholars’ positions to the individualisation argument by neglecting three pertinent factors: their feminist orientation, their multifaceted critiques of NMEF and how the rapidly advancing field of reproductive medicine informs their ethical analysis. While Petersen …

Giulia Cavaliere disagrees with claims that ectogenesis will increase equality and freedom for women, arguing that they often ignore social context and consequently fail to recognise that ectogenesis may not benefit women or it may only benefit a small subset of already privileged women. In this commentary, I will contextualise her argument within the broader cultural milieu to highlight the pattern of reproductive advancements and technologies, such as egg freezing and birth control, being presented as the panacea for women’s inequality. While these advancements and technologies can benefit women, I argue medicine is not the best tool to ‘cure’ social problems and should not be co-opted as an agent of social change. Systemic social changes, not just technomedical approaches, are needed to address the root of gender inequality, which is social in nature, not medical.