|
|
Although there are many who believe that the new reproductive technologies are nothing short of miraculous and open up choices to women and to couples that would never have been possible, there are others who believe that they are a curse on families and upon women. Assisted reproductive technology is not without medical side effects or risks (see Chapter 2, "In Vitro Fertilization and the ARTs"), and people who are desperate for children may not be in the best position to objectively evaluate these risks to themselves or to third parties. The separation of the various components of motherhood means that some women who are not the intended parents (ovum donors and/or surrogates or gestational carriers) are being subjected to these risks. Many argue that an infertile couple/woman has the right to chose a procedure that involves potential physical harm, but that it is morally unacceptable to subject a young, fertile woman to these same risks when she is not the intended parent. Furthermore financial incentives may be inducements to third parties to ignore these potential harms. Here we see examples of when concerns about autonomy and beneficence may collide.
A common worry among caregivers and couples opting for known ovum donation, surrogacy, or gestational care (via a friend or relative), is that the physical ordeal may produce short or long term side effects that are harmful. Careful counseling--both medical and psychological-- of willing third parties, enables these collaborators to thoroughly consider the risks before deciding to proceed. And many argue that third parties, like infertility patients, are also entitled to autonomy when it comes to decisions regarding their bodies. Others argue, however, that there is always inherent coercion (financial or personal) for donors, surrogates, and carriers that cannot be dismissed and that amounts to exploitation.
© Ellen Sarasohn Glazer, LICSW
Susan Lewis Cooper
 |
 |
