scholarly journals Merchandise or gift: Sperm banks and reproductive autonomy

2017 ◽  
Vol 12 (03) ◽  
Author(s):  
Consuelo Álvarez Plaza ◽  
J. Ignacio Pichardo Galán
Keyword(s):  
Reproductive Autonomy ◽  
Sperm Banks

Artificial Insemination: An Academic Analysis from the Perspectives of Sharia and Contemporary Medicine

2020 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 16-24
Author(s):  
Mohammad Ayaz Niazi
Keyword(s):  
Artificial Insemination ◽  
Baby Girl ◽  
Western Countries ◽  
Sharia Law ◽  
Medical Issues ◽  
Scholarly Article ◽  
Infertile Couples ◽  
Sperm Banks ◽  
Contemporary Medicine ◽  
The Uk

This scholarly article discusses the view of Islamic Sharia law pertaining to artificial insemination. Artificial insemination, as one of the contemporary medical issues, was not in existence in the era of Sharia jurisprudents. It emerged in the last century as a result of scientific and medical developments; as its first successful experience in the field was performed in the UK in 1977 on the birth of a baby girl called Louise Brown. The practice later proliferated in other western countries, even surpassing its legitimate aim of treating infertile couples, as it began to entail businesses such as womb comodification, the establishment of sperm banks, and the like.

Prenatal Genetic Screening, Epistemic Justice, and Reproductive Autonomy

Hypatia ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 36 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-21
Author(s):  
Amber Knight ◽  
Joshua Miller
Keyword(s):  
Prenatal Testing ◽  
Relevant Information ◽  
Medical Professionals ◽  
Reproductive Decisions ◽  
Reproductive Autonomy ◽  
Noninvasive Prenatal Testing ◽  
Epistemic Justice ◽  
Reproductive Decision Making ◽  
Testimonial Injustice ◽  
And Control

AbstractNoninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) promises to enhance women's reproductive autonomy by providing genetic information about the fetus, especially in the detection of genetic impairments like Down syndrome (DS). In practice, however, NIPT provides opportunities for intensified manipulation and control over women's reproductive decisions. Applying Miranda Fricker's concept of epistemic injustice to prenatal screening, this article analyzes how medical professionals impair reproductive decision-making by perpetuating testimonial injustice. They do so by discrediting positive parental testimony about what it is like to raise a child with DS. We argue that this testimonial injustice constitutes a twofold harm: (1) people with DS and their family members who claim that parenting a child with DS may be a rewarding and joyous experience are harmed when they are systematically silenced, disbelieved, and/or denied epistemic credibility by medical professionals, and (2) pregnant women are harmed since they might make poorly informed choices without access to all relevant information. The broader implication of the analysis is that epistemic justice is a precondition of reproductive autonomy. We conclude by calling for federal oversight of the acquisition and dissemination of information that prospective parents receive following a positive diagnosis of DS to ensure that it is comprehensive and up to date.

scholarly journals Moral ambivalence. A comment on non-invasive prenatal testing from an ethical perspective

2021 ◽  
Vol 0 (0) ◽  
Author(s):  
Bert Heinrichs
Keyword(s):  
Prenatal Testing ◽  
Reproductive Autonomy ◽  
Ethical Perspective ◽  
Non Invasive ◽  
Moral Ambivalence

Abstract Background Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) has been available for almost 10 years. In many countries the test attracted considerable criticism from the start. While most critical comments in this context deal with the (alleged) problem of eugenic selection, I will concentrate on a somewhat broader issue. Content I will argue that NIPT clearly has the potential to increase reproductive autonomy and benefit expectant parents. However, NIPT can also put people in a situation that is morally overwhelming for them and from which there is no easy way out. In this sense, such tests can have a dilemma-generating effect. Summary and Outlook I will conclude that this can be adequately described by the term “moral ambivalence”.

Reproductive Autonomy and Evolutionary Biology: A Regulatory Framework for Trait-Selection Technologies

1993 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. 187-231
Author(s):  
Owen D. Jones
Keyword(s):  
Reproductive Success ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Reproductive Strategies ◽  
Evolutionary Biology ◽  
Social Values ◽  
Inclusive Fitness ◽  
Regulatory System ◽  
Regulatory Framework ◽  
Reproductive Autonomy ◽  
Future Child

The Constitution protects, in some measure, each person's autonomy in making basic decisions about family, parenthood, and procreation. This Article examines the extent to which courts should protect from government intrusions a parent's access to technologies that influence specific characteristics of offspring. Beginning with Supreme Court opinions that articulate constitutional and social values regarding reproductive autonomy, the Article explores how important new insights from evolutionary biology may supplement an understanding of Human procreation. Specifically, the Article explains how trait selection can constitute an important part of larger “reproductive strategies” that powerfully affect an individual's “inclusive fitness” (itself a measure of reproductive success). It concludes that access to trait-selection technologies should receive the same federal protection from government intrusions as that afforded access to abortion. It proposes the first limit to that protection, however, when a parent seeks to select for a trait, or to use a technique, that would be clearly and significantly damaging to the future child. The Article subsequently divides the use of trait-selection technologies (TSTs) into eight contexts and proposes a preliminary framework by which a regulatory system could legitimately distinguish among them.

scholarly journals Is routine prenatal screening and testing fundamentally incompatible with a commitment to reproductive choice? Learning from the historical context

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Panagiota Nakou
Keyword(s):  
Prenatal Screening ◽  
Scientific Discovery ◽  
Historical Context ◽  
Historical Review ◽  
Reproductive Choice ◽  
Reproductive Autonomy ◽  
Ethical Debate ◽  
Autonomous Decision ◽  
Early Use ◽  
Insight Into

Abstract An enduring ethical dispute accompanies prenatal screening and testing (PST) technologies. This ethical debate focuses on notions of reproductive choice. On one side of the dispute are those who have supported PST as a way to empower women’s reproductive choice, while on the other side are those who argue that PST, particularly when made a routine part of prenatal care, limits deliberate choice. Empirical research does not resolve this ethical debate with evidence both of women for whom PST enhances their choices but also persistent evidence of recurrent problems between PST and women’s autonomous decision-making. While there have been attempts to remove challenges to reproductive choice, it has been argued that these challenges cannot be removed entirely. In this paper I provide a historical review of PST technologies’ development and in doing so provide a detailed insight into the root causes of this tension between the opposing sides of this debate. This historical account provides evidence that those who championed the early use of these technologies did so in order to achieve a number of wholly different goals other than women’s choice and empowerment. These different aims focus on scientific discovery and eugenic goals and, I argue, are irreconcilable with women’s choice and empowerment. It thus may not be surprising that the resulting practice of PST continues to resist compatibility with women’s choice and empowerment. Ultimately, by understanding the historical foundations of PST we can more effectively assess how to reconcile women’s reproductive autonomy with routine prenatal screening.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document