The moral complexity of sperm donation

Mapping Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications (ELSI) of gamete donation

RESEARCH QUESTION

This scoping review investigates the Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications (ELSI) of gamete donation, a critical facet of Assisted Reproductive Technologies, by analyzing the evolving research scope, methodological approaches, and the geographical skew in the literature. Despite the increased global uptake of donor gametes, current scholarship predominantly emanates from Western contexts and focuses on majoritized groups. This bias constrains the universality of research findings and limits their applicability across varied legal, cultural, and social contexts, underscoring a need for broader inclusivity.

DESIGN

We addressed 867 pivotal articles published between 1999 and 2019.

RESULTS

Our analysis reveals a discernible escalation in research volume, with 62% based on empirical research. The intellectual landscape unfolds into four dominant clusters: Regulatory Frameworks, Incentives, and Access; Family Dynamics and Genetic Linkages; Identity and Privacy in Donor Conception; and Cultural and Societal Attitudes towards GD. Each cluster highlights nuanced dimensions of gamete donation, from regulatory intricacies and psychological welfare to identity ethics and cultural perceptions.

CONCLUSION

Our findings advocate for a shift towards more globally representative and methodologically inclusive research. By integrating diverse cultural narratives and expanding geographical breadth, future research can offer holistic understandings of gamete donation, fostering equitable and culturally resonant practices and policies worldwide.

Defending the distinction between pregnancy and parenthood

In this paper, I respond to the criticisms towards my account of the difference in moral status between fetuses and newborns. I show my critics have not adequately argued for their view that pregnant women participate in a parent-child relationship. While an important counterexample is raised against my account, this counterexample had already been dealt with in my original paper. Because the criticisms against my account lack argumentative support, they do not pose a problem for my account. I conclude the raised criticisms do not amount to a stron philosophical case against my account.

Parental responsibilities and moral status

Prabhpal Singh has recently defended a relational account of the difference in moral status between fetuses and newborns as a way of explaining why abortion is permissible and infanticide is not. He claims that only a newborn can stand in a parent-child relation, not a fetus, and this relation has a moral dimension that bestows moral value. We challenge Singh's reasoning, arguing that the case he presents is unconvincing. We suggest that the parent-child relation is better understood as an extension of an existing relationship formed during the gestational period. The change in this relation at birth is not sufficient to justify the radical change in moral status required to rule out infanticide while accepting the permissibility of abortion. Given that the moral status of orphans is also problematic under Singh's account, we conclude that Singh has not shown that a newborn has greater moral worth than a fetus.

Intra-Family Gamete Donation: A Solution to Concerns Regarding Gamete Donation in China?

Gamete donation from third parties is controversial in China as it severs blood ties, which are considered of utmost importance in Confucian tradition. In recent years, infertile couples are increasingly demonstrating a preference for the use of gametes donated by family members to conceive children-known as "intra-family gamete donation." The main advantage of intra-family gamete donation is that it maintains blood ties between children and both parents. To date there is no practice of intra-family gamete donation in China. In this paper, we investigate intra-family adoption in China in order to illustrate that intra-family gamete donation is consistent with Confucian tradition regarding the importance of maintaining blood ties within the family. There are several specific ethical issues raised by intra-family gamete donation. It may, for example, result in consanguinity and the semblance of incest, lead to confused family relationships, and raise concerns about possible coercion of familial donors. Confucian tradition provides a new approach to understand and deal with these ethical issues in a way that Western tradition does not. As a result, we suggest intra-family gamete donation could be an acceptable solution to the problem of infertility in China. However, further discussion and open debates on the ethical issues raised by intra-family gamete donation are needed in China.

What Does Queer Family Equality Have to Do with Reproductive Ethics?

In this paper, I introduce the idea of a queer epistemic privilege that applies to issues of family and parenthood. I ground this privilege in the specific nature of queer people's marginalization—their displacement from family, which leads them to occupy an “insider-outsider” status. After laying out the case for such a privilege, I take up an application of it by offering a queer critique of two representative examples from the reproductive ethics literature: J. David Velleman's opposition to donor conception and Elizabeth Anderson's objections to commercial surrogacy.

Secondary use of empirical research data in medical ethics papers on gamete donation: forms of use and pitfalls

This paper aims to provide a description of how authors publishing in medical ethics journals have made use of empirical research data in papers on the topic of gamete or embryo donation by means of references to studies conducted by others (secondary use). Rather than making a direct contribution to the theoretical methodological literature about the role empirical research data could play or should play in ethics studies, the focus is on the particular uses of these data and the problems that can be encountered with this use. In the selection of papers examined, apart from being used to describe the context, empirical evidence was mainly used to recount problems that needed solving. Few of the authors looked critically at the quality of the studies they quoted, and several instances were found of empirical data being used poorly or inappropriately. This study provides some initial baseline evidence that shows empirical data, in the form of references to studies, are sometimes being used in inappropriate ways. This suggests that medical ethicists should be more concerned about the quality of the empirical data selected, the appropriateness of the choice for a particular type of data (from a particular type of study) and the correct integration of this evidence in sound argumentation. Given that empirical data can be misused also when merely cited instead of reported, it may be worthwhile to explore good practice requirements for this type of use of empirical data in medical ethics.

Rethinking the moral permissibility of gamete donation

The dominant philosophical view of gamete donation as morally permissible (when practiced in the right way) rests on two premises: (1) parental obligations are triggered primarily by playing a causal role (as agent cause) in procreation, not by genetic ties, and (2) those obligations are transferable-that is, they are obligations to make adequate provision for the child's needs, not necessarily to raise the child oneself. Thus while gamete donors are indeed agent causes of the children that their donation helps to bring into existence, most think that donors' obligations are discharged insofar as they know that competent others intend to care for those children. In this article, I call into question this dominant view by challenging both of its premises. Challenging the first premise, I argue that genetic parenthood is what primarily triggers parental obligations. Challenging the second premise, I claim that those obligations are non-transferable-i.e., that they are obligations not simply to ensure that someone will raise one's genetic child, but to raise that child oneself (unless one is incompetent). The implication of my argument is that gamete donation is inherently wrong insofar as it involves acquiring non-transferable obligations that one has no intention of fulfilling.

An overview on ethical issues about sperm donation

Beyond the scientific progress in assisted reproductive technologies (ART), it is necessary to discuss the ethical considerations behind these advances. Ethical issues concerning sperm donation have been considered and discussed by government and non-governmental agencies, the public, media and academic institutions in many countries. Recommendations and guidelines concerning sperm donation issues vary from country to country and between professional groups within countries. This paper attempts to present an overview of findings and reports from various agencies concerning the ethics of sperm donation. The following topics are considered: limiting the number of donor offspring; minimizing risk of infection and genetics from sperm donors; age requirements for sperm donors; and anonymity versus non-anonymity of sperm donors. The diversity of policies shows that each country has its unique set of guidelines tailored toward its own specific needs. Similarly, countries designing their own procedures and guidelines concerning reproductive medicine must tailor them toward their own needs and practical considerations. In Mainland China, the anonymous policy for sperm donation should still be carried out, and the number of donor offspring should be revaluated. ART procedures must be conducted in a way that is respectful of those involved. Ethical principles must respect the interests and welfare of persons who will be born as well as the health and psychosocial welfare of all participants, including sperm donors.

Becoming a father/refusing fatherhood: an empirical bioethics approach to paternal responsibilities and rights

In this paper, we present the first stage of an empirical bioethics project exploring the moral sources of paternal responsibilities and rights. In doing so, we present both (1) data on men's normative constructions of fatherhood and (2) the first of a two-stage methodological approach to empirical bioethics. Using data gathered from 12 focus groups run with UK men who have had a variety of different fathering experiences ( n = 50), we examine men's perspectives on how paternal responsibilities and rights are generated and the significance of the genetic connection within the father–child relationship.

We do not attempt to explore men's experiences of fatherhood or their fathering practices; and neither is the analysis driven from a particular sociological perspective. Rather, we explore men's normative constructions of fatherhood in order to present accessible data that might be of significance to the philosophical/moral debate on the sources of paternal rights and responsibilities.