My Mommy Is My Daddy Is My Mommy

Stem cell research has the potential to change the standard gendered parental relationships by making it possible for women to produce sperm and eggs from stem cells say British researchers in the Globe and Mail.

pregusbellies.jpgBetter yet, a new Canadian "mockumentary" called The Baby Formula brings to the public's attention the fact that some day in the future human reproduction may be markedly different than it is today.

So what's the big deal? So we will be able to produce sperm from women's bone marrow or other stem cell sources and reproduction will no longer require men. Lesbian couples will no longer rely upon sperm donors to have children who at best could only be 50 percent biologically theirs.

Really, the social hurdles shouldn't be the ones that are hardest to overcome, but rather the research ethics challenges. To know whether or not these new "sperm" are viable, embryos made with female only DNA will have to be created and implanted into women and brought to term. There are serious risks with performing this research, and inherently, the women signing up to do this research will be those most desperate to have a child. Thus, the most critical concerns will be: will these women care about informed consent or just having a child?

The ethics concerns here are numerous, but the social ones should not be. Giving same-sex couples a chance to have biologically related children is an important opportunity that ought not be missed--overcoming the ethics concerns is really the only issue that SHOULD have been addressed in such a movie, even a "mockumentary."

Summer Johnson, PhD

comments

Summer, I agree with your argument that it should not about the social implications ( although those more conservative than I am will disagree) However, the informed consent issue is no different than most other situations when a 'patient' is desperate. Perhaps this issue will help open the door wider on that discussion. Protecting those with the most to lose, those with the biggest stake continues to be an ethical problem in medicine. Doctors want to peform their treatments, people want their miracles.

This topic has a lot of gray areas. But more than the ethical and moral stances I feel that the positives and negatives should be weighed up, and a decision made purely from that stance. Probably cause less hassles that way too

I find significant errors with Dr. Johnson's reasoning and subsequent conclusions. First, Dr. Johnson presumes that the "most critical concern" will be to ascertain whether the desire to have a child interferes with a woman's ability to provide consent that is optimally free from coercion. This presumption begs the question that the research per se presents no ethical problems. This presumption rests on the "technological imperative"--if we can do it, we SHOULD do it", and this "imperative" has not and does not serve humanity well as an ethical principle to judge research as ethical. Thus, the "most critical concern" is not the biopsychosocial complications of informed consent, but the multitude of biopsychosocial concerns that inform the ongoing ethical debates about embryonic stem cells, assisted reproduction technologies, family structures and dynamics, and human flourising.

Second, Dr. Johnson appears to commit the logical fallacy of creating a false dichotomy when stating, " The ethics concerns here are numerous, but the social ones should not be." This implies that social concerns are not ethical concerns, which is patently false. Humans and their interactions define "society" and "ethics". The link between society and ethics remains inextricable, regardless of reference to a specific sphere of human activity.

contribute a comment

Your contributions to the conversation are very much appreciated. We do have a few simple guidelines, though. Be civil. Stay on topic. We reserve the right to remove comments that violate the aforementioned guidelines. One more thing: comments are moderated, so it may take a little while for your comment to be posted. Thanks.

what is this?

A 'Nature Top 50' science blog by the editors, staff and friends of The American Journal of Bioethics. Science writes: "To follow the latest twists in ... science stories with social impact, dive into this Web log"

The original story behind this blog

What people are saying about blog.bioethics.net

recently on blog.bioethics.net

Caplan: Zealot's Bad Study Leads Autism Community Astray for A Decade

As Arthur Caplan tells us in this week's MSNBC column, one bad study and a zealot's pursuit of a theory can lead an entire movement... (more)

It's My Baby and I'll Smoke If I Want To! Except Florida.

How far can a court, and by extension the state, go to protect the health and well-being of the unborn? In Florida, it would appear--much... (more)

"Extraordinary Messiness"

Hollywood has taken up orphan diseases before--remember "Lorenzo's Oil"? And bioethics movies generally have been increasingly common, even just in the last year. Think "My... (more)

Ashley X Revisited: Fost and Lantos Debate on the Bioethics Channel

This month's issue of The American Journal of Bioethics features a Target Article by Diekema and Fost articulating their defense of the Ashley X procedures.... (more)

Did Anyone Know It Was National Vaccination Week?

Over on the Practical Bioethics blog, I asked the above question today, based on a story live from Kansas City, MO. The answer: I didn't.... (more)

this blog's feed

  • Subscribe
    • XML
    • Google Reader or Homepage
    • Add to My Yahoo!
    • Subscribe with Bloglines
    • Subscribe in NewsGator Online
    • Add to My AOL
    • Convert RSS to PDF
    • Add to Technorati Favorites!
    • Add to your phone
    • Get RSS Buttons

info

archives

tags