eprintid: 10205236
rev_number: 9
eprint_status: archive
userid: 699
dir: disk0/10/20/52/36
datestamp: 2025-02-25 13:11:42
lastmod: 2025-02-25 13:11:42
status_changed: 2025-02-25 13:11:42
type: article
metadata_visibility: show
sword_depositor: 699
creators_name: Cavaliere, Giulia
title: Fertility treatment, valuable life projects and social norms: In defence of defending (reproductive) preferences
ispublished: pub
divisions: UCL
divisions: B03
divisions: C01
divisions: F16
keywords: fertility treatment provision, genetic relatedness, infertility, IVF, reproductive decisions, uterine transplantation
note: © 2023 The Authors. Bioethics published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
abstract: Fertility treatment enables involuntary childless people to have genetically related children, something that, for many, is a valuable life project. In this paper, I respond to two sets of objections that have been raised against expanding state-funded fertility treatment provision for existing treatments, such as in vitro fertilisation (IVF), and against funding new treatments, such as uterine transplantation (UTx). Following McTernan, I refer to the first set of objections as the ‘one good among many’ objection. It purports that it is unjustifiable for the state to prioritise the funding of the life project of becoming a parent through fertility treatment provision over the funding of other life projects that people might have. Following Lotz, I refer to the second set of objections as the ‘norm-legitimation’ objection. It maintains that the provision of costly forms of fertility treatment, such as UTx, would legitimise problematic social norms concerning genetic relatedness, reproduction and parenting, and that states should not engage in such a legitimation. In response to these objections, I defend the view that (reproductive) preferences ought to be taken more seriously when discussing fertility treatment provision and parental projects, and that not doing so can be costly, especially for women. The approach defended in this paper seeks to avoid disregarding and policing preferences and to reconcile their fulfilment with political projects aimed at improving the material and social conditions of sub-fertile people: people who, for social or biological reasons (or an intersection of the two), are unable to reproduce unassisted.
date: 2024-09
date_type: published
publisher: WILEY
official_url: https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.13194
oa_status: green
full_text_type: pub
language: eng
primo: open
primo_central: open_green
verified: verified_manual
elements_id: 2313818
doi: 10.1111/bioe.13194
medium: Print-Electronic
lyricists_name: Cavaliere, Giulia
lyricists_id: GCAVA29
actors_name: Cavaliere, Giulia
actors_id: GCAVA29
actors_role: owner
full_text_status: public
publication: Bioethics
volume: 38
number: 7
pagerange: 600-608
pages: 9
event_location: England
issn: 0269-9702
citation:        Cavaliere, Giulia;      (2024)    Fertility treatment, valuable life projects and social norms: In defence of defending (reproductive) preferences.                   Bioethics , 38  (7)   pp. 600-608.    10.1111/bioe.13194 <https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.13194>.       Green open access   
 
document_url: https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10205236/1/Cavaliere_Bioethics%20-%202023%20-%20Cavaliere%20-%20Fertility%20treatment%20%20valuable%20life%20projects%20and%20social%20norms%20%20In%20defence%20of%20defending%20.pdf