Dr Georgina Hall1
1The Royal Children’s Hospital, Melbourne
Reproductive rights are universally respected and robustly defended human freedoms. The presumptive priority of reproductive freedom forms the predominant position in the literature, translating in the non-sexual reproductive realm as an almost inviolable right to access assisted reproductive technology (ART). However, reproductive liberty does not guarantee reproduction will occur, firstly because biological causes may prevail, and secondly one may not secure the involvement of other/s to join the project.
While the reasoning and limits of reproductive liberty are implicitly accepted in relation to sexual reproduction, I suggest this is not the case in ART, where access is argued as the private exercise of reproductive liberty. In this framing, refusal of ART by clinicians or state is viewed as ‘unjust’, ‘disingenuous’ and that it ‘discriminates’ against the infertile. I suggest this view over-extends the scope of freedoms the reproductive right protects, and over-inflates the strength of its claim against others.
In this presentation I critically analyse the moral rights individuals assert in reproductive pursuit, demonstrating none of the protected actions or entitlements are sui generis ‘reproductive’ rights, leading to the claim that there is no such thing as a right to reproduce.
I also highlight a significant conceptual inconsistency; while there is consensus that reproductive rights are predominantly negative, access to ART is framed as a component of the right. This wrongly contorts the negative reproductive right into a positive claim-right. I offer a revised conceptual paradigm that has important clinical and policy implications for the provision and regulation of ART.
Biography:
Dr Georgina Hall is Ethics Education Coordinator at the Children’s Bioethics Centre, The Royal Children’s Hospital, Melbourne. Her research interests include reproductive and paediatric clinical ethics.