Article Text
Abstract
Recently, Petersen provided in this journal a critical discussion of individualisation arguments in the context of social egg freezing. This argument underlines the idea that it is morally problematic to use individual technological solutions to solve societal challenges that women face. So far, however, there is a lack of empirical data to contextualise his central normative claim that individualisation arguments are implausible. This article discusses an empirical study that supports a contextualised reading of the normative work of Petersen. Based on a qualitative interview study, we found that most women could make sense of this argument but addressed other concerns that are overlooked in the premises of moral individualisation arguments, for instance, the influence of relationship formation on the demand of egg freezing. Furthermore, women did not experience social egg freezing as morally problematic. Nonetheless, the interviewees pointed to a need of more societal solutions and even actively advocated for efforts to increase accessibility such as a partial reimbursement and better quality of information. The implications of these findings for empirical bioethics are discussed. While more research is needed, we argue that, in order to better address individualisation arguments and related ethical concerns, we need to contextualise normative evaluations within women’s moral reasoning.
- ethics
- women
- reproductive medicine
Data availability statement
Data are available upon request.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Data availability statement
Data are available upon request.
Footnotes
Contributors All the authors have made substantial contributions to the conception, design of the study, acquisition, analysis and interpretation of data. They all participated in the drafting of the work and they approved the final version. MDP and GC are responsible for the overall content as guarantors.
Funding The work for this article was supported by the Flemish Foundation for Scientific Research (FWO-Vlaanderen), grant number 1166119N.
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Arguments on thin ice: on non-medical egg freezing and individualisation arguments
- Disentangling the individualisation argument against non-medical egg freezing from feminist critiques
- Discussing social hierarchies and the importance of genetic ties: a commentary on Petersen
- Advancing technologies as both our saviour and our doom
- Individual solutions to social problems
- Egg freezing for non-medical uses: the lack of a relational approach to autonomy in the new Israeli policy and in academic discussion
- Single women’s access to egg freezing in mainland China: an ethicolegal analysis
- Reproductive technologies are not the cure for social problems
- Latent class analysis of Chinese healthcare providers’ attitudes towards oocyte cryopreservation: a cross-sectional study
- More than an idea: why ectogestation should become a concrete option