Jerry and Sandy Wilson are in their mid-thirties and have been married for ten years. Jerry tested HIV positive prior to their marriage and has been doing well on a multiple drug therapy. His CD4 counts are normal and tests reveal no detectable virus. He and his wife do not have intercourse to protect her from infection; however, they have decided to have a biological child. They sought advice from a maternal-fetal medicine specialist to determine the risk of infection to Sandy from unprotected intercourse and for information about how to improve their chances of conceiving. However, the specialist cautioned them against unprotected intercourse. Despite Jerry's good condition, his seminal fluid still could have a high viral load and pose a risk of infection to Sandy (which might be as high as 15 percent) and the potential baby (as high as 25 percent if Sandy became infected). Neither adoption nor donor insemination from an uninfected male was of interest to them. The specialist informed them of a reproductive technology whereby a single, washed sperm could be inserted into Sandy's extracted ovum, which would then be implanted, a procedure called intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI). Though too few research studies have been done to know precisely what the risk of HIV transmission would be, what research exists suggests that the risk may be significantly lower. The only exposure that Sandy would have to her husband's virus would be via any viral particles clinging to that single, prepared spermatozoon. The specialist contacted several reproductive endocrine centers to see whether they would offer the technology to this couple. Each center refused due to liability risks. How ought this specialist to proceed? How ought one to frame the risks and benefits of this case? Does the man's disabled status alter how the case should be viewed? Should couples in these circumstances be denied access to reproductive services? commentary by Erika Blacksher This couple's situation is not uncommon today. National Public Radio recently reported that thousands of couples in which one or both partners are HIV positive have sought the assistance of infertility specialists in hopes of having biologically related children. Indeed, a new fertility program in Boston has been designed specifically to help HIV couples have children while greatly lowering the risk of HIV transmission to mother and baby. Reproductive technologies have been changing what is possible in human reproduction for at least fifteen years now. Otherwise infertile couples can create children using the gametes of one or both partners. And couples in which one or both partners are carriers for genetic disease for which there exists a diagnostic test can avoid having a child with that disease. The use of new technologies for these purposes is not uncontroversial, though some uses are considered less so than others. Individual commentators disagree about which practices are most controversial and why, though many of the concerns are symbolic in nature, such as the erosion of respect for procreative activity, nascent human life, and notions of family. While some commentators view these worries as too speculative to take seriously, all commentators take seriously concerns about the safety of new technologies. However, concerns that new reproductive technologies pose health risks to potential children have waned as they have produced tens of thousands of healthy babies over the last fifteen years. This distinction points to what is startling about this case and others like it: the willingness to risk the transfer of a dreaded and eventually lethal disease to mother and child. Jerry and Sandy's willingness to risk life in the name of creating it betrays the extent to which these technologies have begun to shape our reproductive hopes, desires, and even expectations. Both male and female commentators who have undergone treatment for infertility have suggested that they felt compelled, perhaps even coerced, to use these technologies. …
Read full abstract