You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Commentary
Non-medical egg freezing and individualisation arguments: reply to Moen, Segers and Campo-Engelstein
  1. Thomas Søbirk Petersen
  1. Philosophy, Roskilde University, Roskilde, Denmark
  1. Correspondence to Dr Thomas Søbirk Petersen, Philosophy, Roskilde University, 4000 Roskilde, Denmark; thomassp{at}ruc.dk

http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2021-107319

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    An argument against the use of non-medical egg freezing (NMEF) is that women should not use NMEF as it is an individualistic and morally problematic answer to the social problems that women face, for instance, in the labour market. Instead of allowing or expecting women to deal with these problems individually, we should address them by challenging the patriarchal structure of the labour market—for example, by securing equal pay and affordable childcare. In a recent article in Journal of Medical Ethics (JME), I argue that we should distinguish between different versions of this kind of reasoning and that all the versions discussed are implausible.1 In three separate comments following my article in the March 2021 issue of JME, Moen,2 Segers3 and Campo-Engelstein4 have supported and criticised some of my results. It is impossible, in such a short reply, to discuss all of their many relevant comments in detail, but in what follows I will reply to some of their criticism.

    Moen presents several interesting comments; let me try to deal with what I take to be the two most important ones. The first of these deals with some of my critical comments concerning …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Twitter @EthicsThSoebirk

    • Contributors I am the sole author of the submitted article.

    • Funding This study was supported by Det Frie Forskningsråd (7013-00042).

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Patient consent for publication Not required.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.

    Other content recommended for you