Artificial Means of Reproduction and Our Understanding of the Family

Abstract

The new reproductive technologies force us to rethink concepts `mother,' `father,' `family.' As draw analogies to traditional patterns, must distinguish between ethical and conceptual questions. Ruth Macklin is professor of bioethics, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, N.Y. It is an obvious truth that scientific and technologic innovations produce changes in traditional way of perceiving world around us. We have only to think of telescope, microscope, and space travel to recall that heretofore unimagined perceptions of macrocosm and microcosm have become commonplace. Yet it is not only perceptions, but also conceptions of familiar that become altered by advances in science and technology. As a beginning student of philosophy, first encountered problems in epistemology generated by scientific knowledge: If physical objects are really composed of molecules in motion, how is it that perceive them as solid? Why is it that objects placed on a table don't slip through empty spaces between molecules? If mind is nothing but electrical processes occurring in brain, how can explain Einstein's ability to create special theory of relativity or Bach's ability to compose Brandenburg Concertos? Now questions are being raised about how a variety of modes of artificial means of reproduction might alter conception of family. George Annas has observed: Dependable birth control made sex without reproduction possible .... Now medicine is closing circle ... by offering methods of reproduction without sex; including artificial insemination by donor (AID), in vitro fertilization (IVF), and surrogate embryo transfer (SET). As with birth control, artificial reproduction is defended as life-affirming and loving by its proponents, and denounced as unnatural by its detractors.[1] Opponents of artificial reproduction have expressed concerns about its effects on family. This concern has centered largely but not entirely on surrogacy arrangements. Among objections to surrogacy made by Roman Catholic Church is charge that the practice of surrogate motherhood is a threat to stability of family.[2] But before consequences for family of surrogacy arrangements or new reproductive practices can be assessed, need to inquire into understanding of family. there a single, incontrovertible conception of family? And who are presupposed in phrase, our understanding? To begin, offer three brief anecdotes. The first is a remark made by a long-married, middle-aged man at a wedding. The wedding couple were both about forty. The bride had been married and divorced once, groom twice. During a light-hearted discussion about marriage and divorce, middle-aged man remarked: I could never divorce my wife. She's family! The second is a remark made by a four-year-old boy. had just moved to neighborhood and was getting to know children. The four-year-old, named Mikey, was being tormented by a five-year-old named Timmy. asked Mikey, Is Timmy your brother? Mikey replied: any more. Not way he acts! The third story appears in a case study presented as part of a bioethics project on everyday dilemmas in nursing home life. A resident, Mrs. Finch, is a constant complainer who seeks more choices and independence than nursing home allows. A social worker at home talked to Mrs. Finch about her adaptation, suggesting that she think of residents and staff group as a large family where we all make allowances for each other and we all pull weight. Mrs. Finch responded that she is in nursing home because she needs health care. She already has a family and does not want another one. In my commentary on case of Mrs. Finch, gave an analysis that suggests some of complexities in understanding concept of family. …