Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Nov;89(4):455-467.
doi: 10.1177/00243639221119317. Epub 2022 Sep 21.

Injustices Implied in the Assisted Reproductive Technologies Market

Affiliations

Injustices Implied in the Assisted Reproductive Technologies Market

Carlo Calleja. Linacre Q. 2022 Nov.

Abstract

This article critiques the current theological basis that deems assisted reproductive technologies (ART) as immoral, namely that it dissociates the unitive act from procreation, and that it violates the dignity of the embryo. It is argued that notwithstanding the validity of these moral truths, these issues are of little relevance to couples facing childlessness. Three alternative views are then presented, all based on the injustices related to the ART market: (a) injustices that directly affect the couple and their offspring, (b) unfairness related to the commercial aspect of ART markets, and (c) the overall effects that impinge on society at large. Therefore, instead of burdening childless couples wanting to have children of their own with the culpability of sin for resorting to ART, one must rather make them aware that they are prey to the ART market while calling for better regulation of this system in order to mitigate these injustices. The article ends with some recommendations on how to address these injustices.

Keywords: artificial reproductive technologies, feminist ethics; in vitro fertilization; infertility; social justice.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

    1. Armstrong E. M. 2007. “Part IV: Re-Imagining Bioethics: Expanding the Borders of Bioethical Inquiry and Action.” Advances in Medical Sociology 9: 263–8.
    1. Balasch J., Gratacós E.. 2011. “Delayed Childbearing: Effects on Fertility and the Outcome of Pregnancy.” Fetal Diagnosis and Therapy 29 (4): 263–73. doi: 10.1159/000323142. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Balser David, Espenberg Helena. 2002. “Assisted Reproductive Technology: Perspectives on Advertising and Marketing in the USA.” Reproductive BioMedicine Online 4 (1): 96–7. doi: 10.1016/S1472-6483(10)61922-0. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Barnhart Kurt T. 2013. “Assisted Reproductive Technologies and Perinatal Morbidity: Interrogating the Association.” Fertility and Sterility 99 (2): 299–302. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2012.12.032. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Bayle Benoît. 2009. À la poursuite de l’enfant parfait: l’avenir de la procréation humaine. Paris: Robert Laffont.

LinkOut - more resources