Opinion : Assisted Reproductive Technology

Submitted for a grade as part of my medical ethics class:

The ethics surrounding assisted reproductive technology (ART) involve the basic issues of both human rights and scientific progress. The science continues to provide us with new techniques to help couples conceive or carry a child while societal attitudes about reproduction rights shift to reflect current ideas. While science is concerned with what we can do, the moral side of the debate asks if we "should" just because we "can". It is important to distinguish between these two sides, because it is important to let the science side advance the technology but allow the moral side to impose limits on the use of this technology. It is not that the right to scientific discovery is more important to the right to reproduce; it is simply a matter that developing the science will not hurt anyone or disrupt any families, where as the act of becoming a parent can have serious consequences.

Current ART methods that are widely available are fertility drugs, surrogate motherhood, and IVF. These methods are commercially successful and have helped many couples have a child. These methods have shown to be safe and effective so there is no real scientific reason contraindicating these procedures. The more controversial ART methods include uterine transplants and cloning procedures. Currently these procedures are likely to have complications for the mother and child respectively, and therefore more animal testing and early stage clinical trials are necessary (see article summary). The main objections to ART in general mainly comes from the moral argument that human beings should not mess with nature. This argument is misguided at scientists, however, as there is nothing inherently wrong with the technology itself. This is the same as the idea that there is nothing wrong with manufacturing a gun, it is using the gun to commit a crime that is the problem. It is the people using the ART for their own ends who deserve the moral scrutiny, and should be subject to guidelines and rules.

Before guidelines can be made however, the ethical issues about the right to procreate must be addressed. Current laws in the US protect the right of a mother to terminate a pregnancy, yet they do not extend an explicit right to begin a pregnancy. This is a major oversight, as the ability to start life is just as important (more so existentially) as the ability to end it. The mother (hopefully with paternal consent) has control over the life of any potential child. This raises the question of whether that control should have limits, and whose interests those limits should be based on.

It is a great regret of many that there is no way to limit reproduction of fertile couples based on their qualifications to be parents. This lack of limits has caused many children to be brought without consent into lives of poverty, abuse, and neglect. It is perhaps stemming from society's inability to prevent this injustice many members seek to limit the parental rights of those who need to rely on ART to conceive. The reliance on ART and subsequent limits leaves infertile couples vulnerable to judgments of others and holds them to a higher standard than other would be parents. "Higher standards" is a bad argument against limits however, because any number of bad parents is no excuse to allow other bad parents to have a child. Any abuse or neglect that can be prevented against a child is worth stopping. Furthermore, parents are subject to scrutiny if they go for the standard alternative to ART: adoption.

When couples choose to use ART, they are making a conscious decision based on their own needs and interests. Unfortunately, people's interests are often selfish and decisions based on love are frequently irrational. This is why society should set limits on ART technology. The technology itself is not wrong, but the humans who use it sometimes are.