Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-mp689 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-20T03:50:01.571Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

‘Male and Female He Created Them’: Procreative liberty, its conceptual deficiencies and the legal right to access fertility care of males

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 September 2011

Daniel Sperling
Daniel Sperling*
Affiliation:
The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel
*
dsperling@mscc.huji.ac.il
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In recent years, assisted reproductive technologies have played an important role in shaping the lives of many individuals throughout the world. Their promise to make people become parents is believed to fulfil the most elementary interests a person may have. It is argued and legally acknowledged that such interests constitute with much significance a person's self-identity and sense of belonging to the living society, also constituting her reproductive liberty or the right to procreate. Despite their significance and importance, access to these technologies and to fertility care specifically may not always accord with the principle of equality and justice. It will be argued that, in some cases, such unequal access reflects various forms of discrimination between different groups in society. It is the purpose of this article to show that such a phenomenon is the result of an underdeveloped and unregulated area of law, characterising many Western countries. Specifically, it demonstrates conceptual deficiencies in so-called ‘procreative liberty’ with regard to the content and scope of the right to procreate, the values underlying such a right, and the legal and social institutions supporting and securing it. The article highlights these deficiencies, making them more evident when the notion of ‘reproductive liberty’ applies to positive and modern attempts to become parents, especially but not exclusively those brought by men.

Type
Articles
Information
International Journal of Law in Context , Volume 7 , Special Issue 3: Health and Human Rights , September 2011 , pp. 375 - 400
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

American Society for Reproductive Medicine Ethics Committee (2004) ‘Child-rearing Ability and the Provision of Fertility Services’, Fertility and Sterility 82(Suppl. 1): S208–S211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
American Society for Reproductive Medicine Ethics Committee (2006) ‘Access to Fertility Treatment by Gays, Lesbians, and Unmarried Persons’, Fertility & Sterility 86: 1333–35.Google Scholar
Asch, Adrienne (1995) ‘Parenthood and Embodiment: Reflections on Biology, Intentionality and Autonomy’, Graven Images 2: 229–36.Google Scholar
Marianne, Bitler and Schmidt, Lucie (2006) ‘Health Disparities and Infertility: Impacts of State-Level Insurance Mandates, Fertility & Sterility 85(4): 858–65.Google Scholar
Brazier, Margaret (1998) ‘Reproductive Rights: Feminism or Patriarchy’, in Harris, J. and Holm, S. (eds), The Future of Human Reproduction. New York: Oxford University Press, 66–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brock, Dan (1995) ‘Procreative Liberty: Review of Children of Choice: Freedom and the New Technologies by John A. Robertson’, Texas Law Review 74(1): 187–206.Google Scholar
Brock, Dan W. (2005) ‘Shaping Future Children: Parental Rights and Societal Interests’, Journal of Political Philosophy 13(4): 377–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buchanan, Allen, Brock, Dan W., Daniels, Norman and Wikler, Daniel (2000) From Chance to Choice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coan, Andrew B. (2010) ‘Assisted Reproductive Equality: An Institutional Analysis’ Case Western Law Review 60: 1143.Google Scholar
Coan, Andrew B. (2011a) ‘The Future of Reproductive Freedom’, Social Science Research Network Electronic Paper no. 1144. Available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1697347, part III.Google Scholar
Coan, Andrew B. (2011b) ‘The Future of Reproductive Freedom’, Social Science Research Network Electronic Paper no. 1144. Available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1697347.Google Scholar
Cohen, I. Glenn (2007–2008) ‘The Constitution and the Rights Not to Procreate’, Stanford Law Review 60: 1135–96.Google Scholar
Coleman, C. H. (2002) ‘Assisted Reproductive Technologies and the Constitution’, Fordham Urban Law Journal 30: 57–70.Google ScholarPubMed
Conly, Sarah (2005) ‘The Right to Procreation: Merits and Limits’, American Philosophical Quarterly 42(2): 105–115.Google Scholar
Daar, Judith F. (2008) ‘Accessing Reproductive Technologies: Invisible Barriers, Indelible Harms, Berkeley Journal of Gender Law & Justice 23: 18–82.Google Scholar
Dillard, Carter J. (2007) ‘Rethinking the Procreative Right’, Yale Human Rights & Development Law Journal 10: 1–63.Google Scholar
Dillard, Carter J. (2008–2009) ‘Child Welfare and Future Person’, Georgia Law Review 43: 367–445.Google Scholar
Dillard, Carter (2010) ‘Valuing Having Children’, Journal of Law & Family Studies 12: 151–98.Google Scholar
Dodds, S. (2000) ‘Choice and Control in Feminist Bioethics’, In Mackenzie, C. and Stoljar, N. (eds), Relational Autonomy: Feminist Perspectives on Autonomy, Agency, and the Social Self. New York: Oxford University Press, 215–35.Google Scholar
Donchin, Anne (2010) ‘In Whose Interest? Policy and Politics in Assisted Reproduction’, Bioethics 25(2): 92–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eager, Whaley (2004) Global Population Policy: From Population Control to Reproductive Rights. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing.Google Scholar
Fanton, Rachel, Heenan, Susan and Rees, Jane (2010) ‘Finally Fit for Purpose? The Human Fertilization and Embryology Act 2008’, Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law 32(3): 275–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farquhar, C. M., Wang, Y. A. and Sullivan, E. A. (2010) ‘A Comparative Analysis of Assisted Reproductive Technology Cycles in Australia and New Zealand 2004–2007’, Human Reproduction 25(9): 2281–89.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fineschi, V., Neri, M. and Turillazzi, E. (2005) ‘The New Italian Law on Assisted Reproduction Technology (Law 40/2004)’, Journal of Medical Ethics 31: 536–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gillett, W. R., Putt, T. and Farquhar, C. M. (2006) ‘Prioritising for Fertility Treatments–The Effect of Excluding Women with a High Body Mass Index’, British Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology 113(10): 1218–21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gurmankin, A. D., Caplan, A. L. and Braverman, A. M. (2005) ‘Screening Practices and Beliefs of Assisted Reproductive Technology Programs’, Fertility & Sterility 83(1): 61–67.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harlow, Holly J. (1996) ‘Paternalism without Paternity: Discrimination against Single Women Seeking Artificial Insemination by Donor’, Southern California Review of Law and Women's Studies 6: 173–220.Google Scholar
Heyd, David (1994) Genethics: Moral Issues in the Creation of People. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Hughes, Edward (2008) ‘Access to Effective Fertility Care in Canada’, Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology. Canada 30(5): 389–90.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ikemoto, Lisa C. (1996) ‘The In/Fertile, the Too Fertile and the Dysfertile’, Hastings Law Journal 47: 1007–1061.Google Scholar
Ikonomidis, Sharon and Lowy, F. (1994) ‘Access to In Vitro Fertilization in Canada’, Journal of Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada 16: 50–54.Google Scholar
Jackson, Emily (2002) ‘Conception and the Irrelevance of the Welfare Principle’, Modern Law Review 65: 176–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, H. W. and Cohen, J. (2004) ‘International Federation of Fertility Societies’, Surveillance, Fertility and Sterility 81(5) Supp. 4: 519–20.Google Scholar
KindreganJr., Charles P. Jr., Charles P. and Snyder, Steven H. (2008) ‘Clarifying the Law of ART: The New American Bar Association Model Act Governing Assisted Reproductive Technology’, Family Law Quarterly 42: 203–229.Google Scholar
Mladovsky, Philipa and Sorenson, Corinna (2010) ‘Public Financing of IVF: A Review of Policy Rationales’, Health Care Analysis 18: 113–28.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Noah, Lars (2003) ‘Assisted Reproductive Technologies and the Pitfalls of Unregulated Biomedical Innovation’, Florida Law Review 55: 603–665.Google ScholarPubMed
Nisker, Jeff (2009) ‘Socially Based Discrimination against Clinically Appropriate Care’, Canadian Medical Association Journal 181 (10): doi:10.1503/cmaj.091620.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Note, (2004–2005) ‘Assessing the Viability of a Substantive Due Process Right to In Vitro Fertilization’, Harvard Law Review 118: 2792–2813.Google Scholar
Nourse, Victoria F. (2008) In Reckless Hands: Skinner v. Oklahoma and the Near Triumph of American Eugenics. New York and London: W.W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
O'neill, Onora (1979) ‘Begetting, Bearing and Rearing’, in O'Neill, Onora and Ruddick, William (eds), Having Children: Philosophical and Legal Reflections on Parenthood. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 25–30.Google Scholar
Orentlicher, David (2011) ‘Discrimination Out of Dismissiveness: The Example of Infertility’, unpublished paper. Available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1359417.Google Scholar
Parker, Michael (2007) ‘The Best Possible Child’, Journal of Medical Ethics 33: 279–83.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pearson, Yvette E. (2007) ‘Storks, Cabbage Patches, and the Right to Procreate’, Bioethical Inquiry 4: 105–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Powell, Lisa (2002) ‘Note, Eugenics and Equality: Does the Constitution Allow Policies Designed to Discourage Reproduction Among Disfavored Groups?’, Yale Law & Policy Review. 20: 481–512.Google Scholar
Pratt, Katherine (2009) ‘Deducting the Costs of Fertility Treatment: Implications of Magdalin v. Commissioner for Opposite-Sex Couples, Gay and Lesbian Same-Sex Couples and Single Women and Men’, Wisconsin Law Reviews 6: 1283.Google Scholar
Priaulx, Nicolette (2008) ‘Rethinking Progenitive Conflict: Why Reproductive Autonomy Matters’, Medical Law Review 16: 169–200.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rao, Radhika (2008) ‘Equal Liberty: Assisted Reproductive Technology and Reproductive Equality’, George Washington Law Review 76: 1457–89.Google Scholar
Raz, Joseph (1986) The Morality of Freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Robertson, John A. (1983) ‘Procreative Liberty and the Control of Conception, Pregnancy and Childbirth’, Virginia Law Review 69: 405–464.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Robertson, John A. (1994) Children of Choice: Freedom and the New Reproductive Technologies. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robertson, John A. (1996) ‘Genetic Selection of Offspring Characteristics, Boston University Law Review 76: 421–82.Google ScholarPubMed
Robertson, John A. (2004) ‘Procreative Liberty and Harm to Offspring in Assisted Reproduction’, American Journal of Law & Medicine 30: 7–40.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Robertson, John A. (2008) ‘Assisting Reproduction, Choosing Genes, and the Scope of Reproductive Freedom’, George Washington Law Review 76: 1490–513.Google Scholar
Royal commission on new reproductive technologies (1993) Proceed with Care: Final Report of the Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies. Ottawa: Minister of Government Services, Canada.Google Scholar
Savulescu, Julian (2001) ‘Procreative Beneficence: Why We Should Select the Best Children’, Bioethics 15 (5–6): 413–26.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shanley, Mary Lyndon and Asch, Adrienne (2009) ‘Involuntary Childlessness, Reproductive Technology, and Social Justice: The Medical Mask on Social Illness’, Signs 34(4): 851–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shanner, Laura (1994–1995) ‘The Right to Procreate: When Rights Claims Have Gone Wrong’, McGill Law Journal 40: 823–74.Google ScholarPubMed
Sherwin, Susan (1998) ‘A Relational Approach to Autonomy in Health Care’, in Sherwin, Susan (ed.), The Politics of Women's Health: Exploring Agency and Autonomy. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 19–47.Google Scholar
Silver, Lee M. and Silver, Susan Remis (1998) ‘Confused Heritage and the Absurdity of Genetic Ownership, Harvard Journal of Law and Technology 11(3): 593–618.Google ScholarPubMed
Sperling, Daniel (2004) ‘From the Dead to the Unborn: Is There an Ethical Duty to Save Life?, Medicine & Law 23: 567–85.Google Scholar
Sperling, Daniel (2008a) ‘Law and Bioethics: A Rights-Based Relationship and Its Troubling Implications, Current Legal Issues 11: 52–78.Google Scholar
Sperling, Daniel (2008b) Posthumous Interests: Legal and Ethical Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sperling, Daniel (2009) ‘Talk to Whom? Redefining Autonomy in Talk to Her’, in Shapshay, Sandra (ed.), Bioethics at the Movies. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, 312–27.Google Scholar
Sperling, Daniel (2010) ‘Commanding the “Be Fruitful and Multiply” Directive: Reproductive Law and Policy in Israel’, Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 19(3): 363–71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sperling, Daniel (2011) ‘The Therapeutic Triumph: Making Poor Claims to Justify Embryo Selection’ (forthcoming, Ethical Perspectives).Google Scholar
Sperling, Daniel and Simon, Yael (2010) ‘Attitudes and Policies Regarding Access to Fertility Care and Assisted Reproductive Technologies in Israel’, Reproductive Biomedicine Online 21(7): 854–61.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Steinbock, Bonnie (2005) ‘Do Variations in Assisted Reproductive Technology Programs’ Screening Practices Indicate a Need for National Guidelines? Another Perspective', Fertility and Sterility 84(5): 1551–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stern, Judy E., Cramer, Catherine P., Garrod, Andrew and Green, Ronald M. (2001) ‘Access to Services at Assisted Reproductive Technology Clinics: A Survey of Policies and Practices, American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 184(4): 591–97.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stern, Judy E., Cramer, Catherine P., Garrod, Andrew and Green, Ronald M. (2002) ‘Attitudes on Access to Services at Assisted Reproductive Technology Clinics: Comparisons with Clinic Policy, Fertility and Sterility 77(3): 537–41.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Storrow, Richard F. (2007) ‘The Bioethics of Prospective Parenthood: In Pursuit of the Proper Standard for Gatekeeping in Infertility Clinics, Cardozo Law Review 28: 2283–320.Google Scholar
Storrow, Richard F. (2009–2010) ‘Medical Conscience and the Policing of Parenthood, William and Mary Journal of Women and the Law 16: 369–93.Google Scholar
Sunstein, Cass R. (2002) ‘Is There a Constitutional Right to Clone?’, Hastings Law Journal 53: 987–1005.Google Scholar
Suter, Sonia M. (2007) ‘A Brave New World of Designer Babies?’, Berkeley Technology Law Journal 22: 897–969.Google Scholar
Suter, Sonia M. (2008) ‘Advanced Reproductive Technologies Seen Through the “Repugnance” Lens of Carhart v. Gonzales and Other Theories of Reproductive Rights’, George Washington Law Review 76: 1514–98.Google Scholar
Tushnet, Mark (1984) ‘An Essay on Rights’, Texas Law Review 62: 1363–403.Google Scholar
Vahratian, Anjel and Smith, Yolanda R. (2009) ‘Should Access to Fertility-Related Services Be Conditional on Body Mass Index?’, Human Reproduction 24(7): 1532–37.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Warren, Mary Anne (1999) ‘Sex Selection: Individual Choice or Cultural Coercion?’, in Kuhse, Hegla and Singer, Peter (eds), Bioethics: An Anthology. Oxford: Blackwell, 137–42.Google Scholar
Warren, Mary Anne (2002) ‘Does Distributive Justice Require Universal Access to Assisted Reproductions?’, in Rhodes, Rosamond, Battin, Margaret P. and Silvers, Anita (eds), Medicine and Social Justice: Essays on the Distribution of Healthcare. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 426–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar