Artificial reproduction Archives - Page 4 of 4 - Protection of Conscience Project Library

Pre-implantation genetic diagnosis and ‘savior siblings’

Bernard M Dickens

International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics

Abstract
From its emergence, preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) has been opposed by religious, feminist, and disability-rights advocates. PGD has developed, however, to extend beyond genetic diagnosis of embryos to diagnose chromosomal abnormalities. Evidence shows that PGD is safe, children born after in vitro fertilization (IVF) and PGD having no higher rate of birth defects than children of normal pregnancies. Laws may accommodate PGD directly or indirectly, but some prohibit PGD totally or except to identify sex-linked genetic disorders. When children suffer severe genetic disorders and require stem-cell transplantation, compatible donors may be unavailable. Then, IVF and PGD of resulting embryos may identify some whose gestation and birth would produce unaffected newborns, and placental and cord blood from which stem-cells compatible for implantation in sick siblings can be derived. Ethical issues concern conscientious objection to direct participation, discarding of healthy but unsuitable embryos, and valuing savior siblings in themselves, not just as means to others’ ends.

Keywords:

Dickens BM. Pre-implantation genetic diagnosis and ‘savior siblings’. Int J Gynaec Obstet. 2005;88(1):91-96.

(News) Matters of principle; AMA favors reproductive rights access but says providers can’t be forced to violate conscience

Deanna Bellandi,Elizabeth Thompson

Extract
After Roman Catholic leaders issued strong criticism about its trampling of religious freedom, the American Medical Association approved a watered-down measure supporting continued community access to a full range of reproductive services following hospital consolidations. The AMA’s amended resolution stopped short of saying Catholic hospitals should have to perform all reproductive health procedures. . . The AMA instead upheld its policy that physicians and hospitals not be forced to perform services that violate their moral principles. . .

Bellandi D, Thompson E. Matters of principle; AMA favors reproductive rights access but says providers can’t be forced to violate conscience. Mod Healthcare 2000 Jun 19; 30(25): 6,14.

Some ethical and legal issues in assisted reproductive technology

Bernard M Dickens, Rebecca J Cook

Abstract
The potential and actual applications of reproductive technologies have been reviewed by many governmental committees, and laws have been enacted in several countries to accommodate, limit and regulate their use. Regulatory systems have nevertheless left some legal and ethical issues unresolved, and have caused other issues to arise. Issues that regulatory systems leave unresolved, or that systems have created, include disposal of embryos that remain after patients’ treatments are concluded, and multiple implantation and pregnancy. This may result in risks to maternal, embryonic and neonatal life and health, and the contentious relief that may be achieved by selective reduction of multiple pregnancies. A further concern arises when clinics must or choose to publicize their success rates, and they compete for favorable statistics by questionable patient selection criteria and treatment priorities..

Dickens BM, Cook RJ. Some ethical and legal issues in assisted reproductive technology. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 1999;66(1) 55-61.

Crisis of Conscience: Reconciling Religious Health Care Providers’ Beliefs and Patients’ Rights

Katherine A White

Abstract
In this note, Katherine A. White explores the conflict between religious health care providers who provide care in accordance with their religious beliefs and the patients who want access to medical care that these religious providers find objectionable. Specifically, she examines Roman Catholic health care institutions and HMOs that follow the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services and considers other religious providers with similar beliefs. In accordance with the Directives, these institutions maintain policies that restrict access to “sensitive” services like abortion, family planning , HIV counseling, infertility treatment, and termination of life-support. White explains how most state laws protecting providers’ right to refuse treatments in conflict with religious principles do not cover this wide range of services. Furthermore, many state and federal laws and some court decisions guarantee patients the right to receive this care. The constitutional complication inherent in this provider-patient conflict emerges in White’s analysis of the interaction of the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses of the First Amendment and patients’ right to privacy. White concludes her note by exploring the success of both provider-initiated and legislatively mandated compromise strategies. She first describes the strategies adopted by four different religious HMOs which vary in how they increase or restrict access to sensitive services. She then turns her focus to state and federal “bypass” legislation, ultimately concluding that increased state supervision might help these laws become more viable solutions to provider-patient conflicts.

White KA. Crisis of Conscience: Reconciling Religious Health Care Providers’ Beliefs and Patients’ Rights. Stanford Law Rev. 1999 Jul;51(6)1703-1749.

The Right to Procreate: When Rights Claims Have Gone Wrong

Laura Shauuer

Abstract
Debates regarding the development of new reproductive technologies (NRTs), funding for infertility treatments, and non-medical criteria for access to infertility treatments frequently invoke “rights to reproduce” or “procreative rights”. The claim of this right – literally the right to have children – is not the same thing as many other “reproductive rights” that are invoked in contraception, abortion, and pregnancy management discussions.

The author argues that the claim of a right to bear or beget children, which may in turn support research into NRTs and then funding and access claims, is not justified. Framing procreative decisions in terms of rights claims is a problematic ethical project, which in turn creates difficulties for the establishment of legal procreative rights. There are two critical problems: first, the distinction between positive (entitlement) and negative (liberty) rights claims leaves those requiring reproductive assistance in need of a different justification for their claims than those who need no help; second, a procreative right is generally claimed to be limited by the rights or interests of the future children, but a right of non-conception is an intemally contradictory concept.

The author then discusses variations of procreative rights claims, including claims of rights to enter reproductive contracts or to seek assistance, and other conceptual foundations for reproductive decisions. Thus, while reproductive rights are often helpful in protecting individuals and families from undue governmental intrusion, rights are shown to be a problematic, inadequate, and inappropriate framework to describe both the legal and moral status of claims for assisted procreation.

Shauuer L. The Right to Procreate: When Rights Claims Have Gone Wrong. McGill Law J. 1995 Aug;40(823-874.

Artificial Reproduction and Child Custody

Bernard M Dickens

This article considers general principles of child custody law in regard to children born following artificial reproduction that employed donated sperm, ova
or embryos, and the law applicable when women give birth to children conceived in order to be surrendered to others (notably their biological fathers). Claims to parental rights raise the issue of who the legal parents are, and may conflict with the apparent best interests of such children and the state’s view of its responsibility. The article considers interests of the unconceived child, the embryo and fetus in utero, the embryo extra uterum and a child born of donation, and the status of sperm, ovum and embryo donors and of “surrogate” mothers. Particular attention is given to the Ontario Law Reform Commission’s Report on Human Artificial Reproduction and Related Matters (1985), which is the first Canadian report to make wide-ranging recommendations on these issues .

Dickens B. Artificial Reproduction and Child Custody. Can Bar Rev 1987 Mar; 66(1): 49-75.