Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T07:43:49.088Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Collaboration and Commodification in Assisted Procreation: Reflections on an Open Market and Anonymous Donation in Human Sperm and Eggs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 April 2024

Mary Lyndon Shanley
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The practices through which American society regulates the transfer of human gametes (eggs and sperm) reflects and shapes our understanding of our relationship to our genetic materials. The ways in which we think about and justify these practices engages important themes of liberal political theory and law: the understanding of individuals as autonomous or defined (at least in part) by relationships that entail dependence and care; the meaning of reproductive freedom and procreative collaboration; and the extent to which a free market may protect or undercut individual liberty. Two ethical and policy questions reflect these issues: should persons created with third-party gametes be able to learn the identity of the donor(s), and should the sale of eggs and sperm be prohibited, regulated, or left to the open market? This article contends that society should prohibit both anonymous transfer of and payment for human gametes themselves. Abolition of both anonymity and payment in the practice of gamete transfer is necessary to reflect properly the collaborative nature of assisted procreation. Although political reality may lead society to permit payment of a strictly capped “inconvenience allowance” for undergoing the procedures involved in transferring one's gametes, such payment (while preferable to payment for gametes themselves) inappropriately conceptualizes use of one's body as a commodity.

Type
Papers of General Interest
Information
Law & Society Review , Volume 36 , Issue 2: Special Issue on Nonbiological Parenting , 2002 , pp. 257 - 283
Copyright
Copyright © 2002 Law and Society Association.

Footnotes

I want to thank the anonymous reviewers of this article for excellent criticisms that helped me clarify my argument. I benefited from the opportunity to present portions of this work at UCLA, Columbia University, the University of Michigan, Trinity College (Hartford), and Washington University.

References

References

Annas, George A. (1979) “Artificial Insemination: Beyond the Best Interests of the Donor,” 4 The Hastings Center Report 14–15.Google ScholarPubMed
Annas, George A. (1998) “The Shadowlands—Secrets, Lies, and Assisted Reproduction,” 339 The New England J. of Medicine 935–39.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Areen, Judith, ed. (1985) Family Law: Cases and Materials, 2nd Ed. Mineola, NY: The Foundation Press, 878–882.Google Scholar
Baum, Kenneth (2001) “Golden Eggs: Towards the Rational Regulation of Oocyte Donation,” Brigham Young Univ. Law Rev. 107–66.Google ScholarPubMed
Canada, House of Commons Standing Committee on Health, “Assisted Human Reproduction: Building Families” 2001. http://www.parl.gc.ca/InfoComDoc/37/1/HEAL/Studies/Reports/healrp01-e.htm.Google Scholar
Craft, Ian (1997) “An ‘Inconvenience Allowance’ Would Solve the Egg Shortage,” 314 British Medical J. 1400.Google Scholar
Curie-Cohen, Martin, Luttrell, Lesleigh, & Shapiro, Sander (1979) “Current Practice of Artificial Insemination by Donor in the United States,” 300 New England J. of Medicine 585–90.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cuisine, Douglas J. (1980) “Legal Aspects of AID,” in David, Georges & Price, Wendel S., eds., Human Artificial Insemination and Semen Preservation. New York: Plenum Press 485–90.Google Scholar
Daniels, Ken R. (1998) “Assisted Human Reproduction in New Zealand: The Contribution of Ethics,” 8 Eubios J. of Asian and International Bioethics 79–81.Google Scholar
Daniels, Ken & Taylor, Karen (1993) “Secrecy and Ownership in Donor Insemination,” 12 Politics and the Life Sciences 155–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daniels, Ken & Lewis, Gillian M. (1996) “Donor Insemination: The Gifting and Selling of Semen,” 42 Social Science and Medicine 1521–36.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
David, Georges & Lansac, Jacques (1980) “The Organization of the Centers for the Study and Preservation of Semen in France,” in David, Georges & Price, Wendel S., eds., Human Artificial Insemination and Semen Preservation. New York: Plenum Press 15–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dickenson, Donna L. (1997a) “Procuring Gametes for Research and Therapy: The Argument for Unisex Altruism—a Response to Donald Evans,” 23 J. of Medical Ethics 93–95.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dickenson, Donna L. (1997b) Property, Women & Politics: Subjects or Objects? New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Dolgin, Janet L. (1997) Defining the Family: Law, Technology, and Reproduction in an Uneasy Age. New York: New York Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Dworkin, Ronald (1993) Life's Dominion: An Argument About Abortion, Euthanasia, and Individual Freedom. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
Evans, Donald (1995) “Procuring Gametes for Research and Therapy,” 21 J. of Medical Ethics 262–64.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fogg-Davis, Hawley (2000) “She Works Hard for the Money?: Addressing Employment Discrimination in Paid Egg Donation.” Presented at American Political Science Association annual meeting, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Folsome, Claire E. (1943) “The Status of Artificial Insemination,” 45 American J. of Obstetrics and Gynecology 915–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hollinger, Joan Heifetz (1985) “From Coitus to Commerce: Legal and Social Consequences of Noncoital Reproduction,” 18 Univ. of Michigan J. of Law Reform 865–932.Google ScholarPubMed
Huerre, Patrick (1980) “Psychological Aspects of Semen Donation,” in David, Georges & Price, Wendel S., eds., Human Artificial Insemination and Semen Preservation. New York, Plenum Press, 461–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, Martin H. (1997) “The Culture of Unpaid and Voluntary Egg Donation Should Be Strengthened,” 314 British Medical J. 1401.Google Scholar
Kingsolver, Barbara (1998) The Poisonwood Bible. New York: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
Knoppers, Bartha M. & LeBris, Sonia (1991) “Recent Advances in Medically Assisted Conception: Legal, Ethical, and Social Issues,” 17 American J. of Law and Medicine 329–61.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kolata, Gina (1998) “Price Soars for Eggs, Setting Off a Debate on a Clinic's Ethics,” New York Times, 25 February A1.Google Scholar
Konrad, Monica (1998) “Ova Donation and Symbols of Substance: Some Variations on the Theme of Sex, Gender and the Partible Body,” 4 J. of the Royal Anthropological Institute 643.Google Scholar
Leighton, Neil (1995) “The Family: Whose Construct Is It Anyway?” in Ulanowsky, Carole, ed. The Family in the Age of Biotechnology. Avebury: Ashgate Publishing 91–104.Google Scholar
Le Lannou, Dominique, Lobel, Bernard, & Chambon, Yves (1980) “Sperm Banks and Donor Recruitment in France,” in David, Georges & Price, Wendel S., eds., Human Artificial Insemination and Semen Preservation. New York: Plenum Press 89–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ludtke, Melissa (1997) On Our Own: Unmarried Motherhood in America. Berkeley and Los Angeles: Univ. of California Press.Google Scholar
Mahowald, Mary B. (2000) “Genes, Clones, and Gender Equality,” 3 DePaul J. of Health Care Law 495–526.Google ScholarPubMed
Manuel, Christine, Chevret, Marie, & Czyba, Jean-Claude (1980) “Handling of Secrecy by AID Couples,” in David, Georges & Price, Wendel S., eds., Human Artificial Insemination and Semen Preservation. New York: Plenum Press 419–29.Google Scholar
McShane, Patricia M. (1988) “In Vitro Fertilization, GIFT and Related Technologies—Hope in a Test Tube,” in Baruch, Elaine Hoffman, D'Adamo, Amadeo F. Jr. & Seager, Joni, eds., Embryos, Ethics, and Women's Rights: Exploring the New Reproductive Technologies. New York and London: The Haworth Press 31–36.Google Scholar
Mead, Rebecca (1999) “Eggs for Sale,” The New Yorker 56–65.Google Scholar
The Miscellany News, Vol. 133 (March 24, 2000), 5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nachtigall, Robert D. (1993) “Secrecy: An Unresolved Issue in the Practice of Donor Insemination,” 168 American J. of Obstetrics and Gynecology 1846–51.Google ScholarPubMed
Nedelsky, Jennifer (1989) “Reconceiving Autonomy: Sources, Thoughts and Possibilities,” 1 Yale J. of Law and Feminism 7–36.Google Scholar
Nedelsky, Jennifer (1990) “Law, Boundaries, and the Bounded Self,” 30 Representations 162–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
The New York Times, Metropolitan ed. 3 March 1999 A10.Google Scholar
Overall, Christine (1987) Ethics and Human Reproduction. Boston: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Overall, Christine (1993) Human Reproduction: Principles, Practices, Policies. Toronto: Oxford Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Pateman, Carole (2002) “Self-Ownership and Property in the Person: Democratization and a Tale of Two Concepts,” 10 The J. of Political Philosophy 20–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
People 53, no. 19 (May 15, 2000), 68–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poughkeepsie Journal, 23 September 2000, 8D.Google Scholar
Radin, Margaret Jane (1987) “Market Inalienability,” 100 Harvard Law Rev. 1849–1937.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, Dorothy (1995) “The Genetic Tie,” 62 Univ. of Chicago Law R. 209–73.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roy, David J. (1980) “AID: An Overview of Ethical Issues,” in David, Georges & Price, Wendel S., eds., Human Artificial Insemination and Semen Preservation. New York: Plenum Press 499–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sandel, Michael (1982) Liberalism, and the Limits of Justice. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sandel, Michael (1996) Democracy's Discontent. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Sanger, Carol (1996) “Separating from Children,” 96 Columbia Law Rev. 375–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sauer, Mark V. (1997) “Exploitation or a Woman's Right? (An Ethical Dilemma: Should Egg Donors Be Paid?)” 314 British Medical J. 1403.Google Scholar
Scott, Russell (1981) The Body as Property. New York: Viking Press.Google Scholar
Seligson, Susan V. (1995) “Seeds of Doubt,” 275 The Atlantic Monthly 28–31.Google Scholar
Seymour, Francis I. & Koerner, Alfred (1941) “Artificial Insemination: Present Status in the United States as Shown by a Recent Survey,” J. of the American Medical Association 2747–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shanley, Mary Lyndon (1995) “Unwed Fathers' Rights, Adoption, and Sex Equality: Gender-neutrality and the Perpetuation of Patriarchy,” 95 Columbia Law Rev. 201–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shanley, Mary Lyndon (2001) Making Babies, Making Families: What Matters Most in an Age of Reproductive Technologies, Surrogacy, Adoption, and Same-Sex and Unwed Parents. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
Strathern, Marilyn (1988) The Gender of the Gift. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Strathern, Marilyn (1992) Reproducing the Future: Essays on Anthropology, Kinship and the New Reproductive Technologies. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Waldron, Jeremy (1988) The Right to Private Property. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Williams, Patricia (1995) The Rooster's Egg. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Woodhouse, Barbara Bennett (1994) “‘Out of Children's Needs, Children's Rights’: The Child's Voice in Defining the Family,” 8 Brigham Young Univ. J. of Public Law 321–41.Google Scholar
Woodhouse, Barbara Bennett (1993) “Hatching the Egg: A Child-Centered Perspective on Parents' Rights,” 14 Cardozo Law Rev. 1747–865.Google Scholar
Yngvesson, Barbara (2000) “Un Niño de Cualquier Color: Race and Nation in Intercountry Adoption,” in Jensen, Jane & Santos, Boaventura de Sousa, eds., Globalizing Institutions: Case Studies in Regulation and Innovation. Aldershot: Ashgate Press, 169–204.Google Scholar

Case Cited

In Re Adoption of Anonymous, 74 Misc. 2d 99, 345 N.Y.S.2d 430 (Surrogates Court of New York, Kings County, 1973), in Family Law: Cases and Materials, 2d ed., ed. Areen, Judith (Mineola, N.Y.: The Foundation Press, 1985), 878–82.Google Scholar

Bill Cited

Canada. House of Commons. Bill C-56, “An Act Respecting Assisted Human Reproduction.”49-50-51 Elizabeth II, 2001-2001. http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/english/protection/reproduction/index.htm.Google Scholar