Procreative Freedoms
Using Donated Gametes
A Parental Virtue Ethics Perspective
Damian Adams B.Biotech (Hons)
Procreative Freedoms (Australia)
When, with whom and how – inalienable human
freedom, but not a biological right.
Donor Conception (DC) allowed infertile people the
freedom to procreate.
DC framework – ability to produce a child via a third
party that is not prohibited by law (eligibility
requirements and means).
Current Procreative Freedoms
Parent’s freedom to decide does not end with DC
- clinic, state/territory or country?
- choice of donor?
- tell or not tell and if so when?
Some literature suggests potential harms to children.
Do parent’s ethically and morally have these increased
freedoms due to potential harms?
Child Welfare Paramountcy
Oz legislation (some states) and guidelines (national)
describe the child’s welfare as paramount.
Constraints on natural procreation is unethical,
DC is artificial construct involving 3rd party(s).
States have general duty of care to children under
existing law.
Potential to cause harm requires careful
consideration.
3 Parental Virtues and NAVE
Neo-Aristotelian Virtue Ethics
Rosalind McDougall used NAVE to create
3 Parental Virtues.(2007)
NAVE = Virtuous character and flourishing of
the human being.
3 PVs and child welfare paramountcy principle
don’t preclude flourishing of parents
- conflict, child takes precedence.
McDougall’s 3 Parental Virtues
Paraphrased
1. Acceptingness – parent will accept the child for
whoever or whatever the child represents.
2. Committedness – parent undertakes responsibility
to actively parent the child and to be there for
the child.
3. Future-Agent-Focus – principle that the child will
become an adult and agent of own free will,
- not adversely interfere with current & future
opportunities (value structured – virtuous).
Applying 3 PVs to DC Outcomes
McDougall’s premise is that the framework is to
be used to determine if a virtuous parent
would do something and not if it harms.
BUT a virtuous parent in aiming to be virtuous
would assess harms in making decisions
allows 3 PVs use in analysis.
Committedness – given the effort and cost a
parent enters into, assume that this PV is
passed.
Offspring outcomes assessed against
remaining 2 PVs.
Deception of Origins
Current practice = identity release > 18 years.
Previous practice = anonymous donors.
Up to parents to disclose, majority do not.
Origins of a person central to who they are.
Deception potentially creates a psychologically
harmful environment.
No harm, no foul – if not told then no harm, but
denies respect.
This is how offspring wish to be treated, majority
wish to know the truth about their
origins (70-90%).
Deception of Origins
Deception of origins fails the acceptingness test
- not comfortable with non-biological
- fail to accept what the child represents
(reminder of infertility).
Simplistically truthfulness and openness
represent virtuous character rather than
deception and lies.
Kinship Separation
Not only donor, but siblings, grandparents etc.
For some this is extremely traumatic and the
majority wish to know other family
members, not just donor.
Due to current practice (ID release > 18), forced
kinship separation fails the acceptingness
of the complete child.
But NO fault of parent.
Loss of Identity
Loss of kinship = loss of heritage and identity.
Adolescence is a crucial time for ID formation.
Absence of one or both biological parents
removes the mirror – looks, personality,
behaviour.
Some studies suggest over 40% behaviour
inherited – substantial mirror missing.
Majority of teenage offspring want a picture of
donor and non-identifying info (vocation,
interests, children).
Loss of Identity
Identity loss harm assessment – fails
acceptingness and future-agent-focus,
no parental fault.
Alternative approach – if parents let child’s ID
freely develop (ie tell the child early) and
not willfully force an identity construct
 are accepting of child and not
influencing future-agent-focus.
Late Discovery
Disclosure in adulthood often associated with
extreme circumstances.
Leads to distrust of parents, confusion, deceit
and possibly anger.
ID construct becomes destroyed and new
information is difficult to assimilate.
By not disclosing for a significant portion of
child’s life, the parent fails:
Acceptingness and F-A-F
(failure may be viewed as temp.)
Incomplete Medical Histories
All offspring have incomplete medical histories:
1) no knowledge of donor’s history
2) info is outdated.
Adversely effects early diagnosis, screening of
hereditary diseases and lifestyle choices.
Already cases whereby this has affected
offspring.
Some argue non-disclosure does no harm
psycho-socially, but what about
physical health?
Incomplete Medical Histories
Parents are being deprived of the ability to
provide up to date medical histories.
Fails the future-agent-focus test
- child’s ability to flourish is potentially
hampered.
No fault of the parent.
Direct Physical Harms
Pre-eclampsia is increased in DC, extremely
hazardous to child and mother.
Frozen gametes increases DNA fragn and
damage which can persist in the embryo.
Damage is mediated by oxidative stress which
has been linked to childhood
cancers.
Direct Physical Harms
Single base changes in DNA associated with
increased incidences of autism and
schizophrenia.
Physical harms fails future-agent-focus test.
Consanguineous Relationships
Illegal in Australia under Federal Marriage Act.
Offspring that are deceived of origins are unaware
of potential siblings.
Aware offspring denied full knowledge of all
siblings, other donation, natural children.
Genetic sexual attraction, those separated at
birth have been attracted and formed
relationships when reunited.
Similar likes (inherited) can lead to mingling in
similar circles increasing chances
of crossing paths.
Consanguineous Relationships
Knowledge of kinship reduces the number of
potential relationships,
 counter to F-A-F (reduced possibilities).
Another component of F-A-F = ensure child
develops into future moral agent with
virtues (law-abiding citizen).
On balance LAC outweighs the small increase of
future possible relationships.
 Possibility to form consanguineous
relationships fails F-A-F test.
Reconceptualising the Paradigm
Currently the paradigm restricts parental
choices  reduction in parental ability to
be virtuous.
Practice needs to be altered to give parents
increased choice and ability to fulfill 3PV’s.
Changes to a child-centric paradigm that may
initially be viewed as restrictive to adult’s
procreative freedoms actually improves
parental virtuosness.