Article Text

other Versions

Download PDFPDF
‘False hope’ in assisted reproduction: the normative significance of the external outlook and moral negotiation
  1. Dorian Accoe1,
  2. Seppe Segers1,2
  1. 1Department of Philosophy and Moral Sciences, Bioethics Institute Ghent & Metamedica, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium
  2. 2Department of Health, Ethics and Society, CAPHRI & GROW, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands
  1. Correspondence to Mr Dorian Accoe, Department of Philosophy and Moral Sciences, Bioethics Institute Ghent & Metamedica, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium; Dorian.Accoe{at}UGent.be

Abstract

Despite the frequent invocation of ‘false hope’ and possible related moral concerns in the context of assisted reproduction technologies, a focused ethical and conceptual problematisation of this concept seems to be lacking. We argue that an invocation of ‘false hope’ only makes sense if the fulfilment of a desired outcome (eg, a successful fertility treatment) is impossible, and if it is attributed from an external perspective. The evaluation incurred by this third party may foreclose a given perspective from being an object of hope. However, this evaluation is not a mere statistical calculation or observation based on probabilities but is dependent on several factors that should be acknowledgeable as morally relevant. This is important because it allows room for, and encourages, reasoned disagreement and moral negotiation. Accordingly, the object of hope itself, whether or not based on socially embedded desires or practices, can be a topic of debate.

  • ethics- medical
  • reproductive medicine

Data availability statement

No data are available.

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.

Data availability statement

No data are available.

View Full Text

Footnotes

  • Contributors DA and SS contributed equally to this paper and share the responibility.

  • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

  • Competing interests None declared.

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