Ethics

In assisted reproductive technology, three can be a a crowd (Madeira)

By Jody Madeira

I'm currently preparing an article on the intersection of law and emotion in the context of assisted reproductive technologies (ART), and I've run across an area that seems ripe for comment.  In the context of egg donation, several legal cholars have argued against a market in eggs (paying for gametes); some have stated that they feel that the donation process would ideally be conceptualized as a gift transfer.  These scholars also suggest that these relationships between egg donor and egg recipient are best conceptualized as "collaborative reproduction" relationships, although no one has yet incorporated empirical interviews with assisted reproductive technology patients into current research on this issue (an oversight which my research methodology proposes to remedy).  It is often unspecified what legal ramifications would flow from recognizing the donor-recipient relationship as "collaborative"; what is clear, however, is that the scholars who utilize the term believe it to be a very positive relationship to acknowledge.

I think that the concept of collaborative reproduction is emotionally devastating for the intended mother in whom the fertilized donor egg--now an embryo--will be implanted.  By the time they become pregnant, ART patients are weary of medical micromanagement.  Above all, they seek to make the pregnancy as normal as possible (in contrast to the conception process, which was anything but)--and that means establishing walls of privacy around themselves and their partners--walls that would exclude egg donors, since their presence is a constant reminder of the conception struggle and an obstacle in efforts to "normalize" the pregnancy.  If that means paying for the donor egg in order to divest donors of their parental rights, then so be it.  This does not mean, of course, that ART patients are not incredibly grateful for the egg donor's role in the conception process--just that once pregnancy is achieved, the emotional dynamics of collaborative conception no longer apply as they did previously, when doctors, nurses, hospital ultrasound technicians, and donors were all very much a part of the reproductive process.  Collaborative reproduction is a concept that applies more in gestational surrogacy scenarios, where the presence of the surrogate's womb--and thus of the surrogate--is mandatory. 

Any thoughts?   

Full post as published by Neuroethics and Law on February 12, 2008 (boomark / email).