Does company-sponsored egg freezing promote or confine women's reproductive autonomy?
Does company-sponsored egg freezing promote or confine women's reproductive autonomy?
复制标题
DOI：
10.1007/s10815-015-0500-8
复制
发表时间：
2015-08-01
影响因子：
3.1
通讯作者：
Mertes, Heidi
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Mertes, Heidi
对几家公司为其健康员工支付卵母细胞冷冻保存费用的倡议进行了批判性的伦理分析。主要的研究问题是这些政策是促进还是限制妇女的生殖能力。需要区分年龄银行本身的道德和雇主向雇员提供年龄银行的道德。虽然前者的效用预计是低的，有几个有说服力的论据拒绝访问卵母细胞冷冻保存的妇女谁是充分了解的程序和成功率。然而，这并不意味着雇主为他们的雇员提供卵子银行在道德上是没有问题的。为了使这些政策真正“解放”，需要满足大量的条件，这些条件可以归结为三类：（1）妇女应该了解好处，风险和限制，（2）妇女应该没有压力接受这项服务;（3）有关优惠不应对其他家庭友善政策造成负面影响，并应配合其他家庭友善政策。满足这些条件可能是不可能的。因此，不管公司的意图可能是好的，向妇女提供公司赞助的年龄银行服务并不能很好地促进妇女的生育自主权。
A critical ethical analysis of the initiative of several companies to cover the costs of oocyte cryopreservation for their healthy employees. The main research question is whether such policies promote or confine women's reproductive autonomy.A distinction needs to be made between the ethics of AGE banking in itself and the ethics of employers offering it to their employees. Although the utility of the former is expected to be low, there are few persuasive arguments to deny access to oocyte cryopreservation to women who are well informed about the procedure and the success rates. However, it does not automatically follow that it would be ethically unproblematic for employers to offer egg banking to their employees.For these policies to be truly 'liberating', a substantial number of conditions need to be fulfilled, which can be reduced to three categories: (1) women should understand the benefits, risks and limitations, (2) women should feel no pressure to take up the offer; (3) the offer should have no negative effect on other family-friendly policies and should in fact be accompanied by such policies. Fulfilling these conditions may turn out to be impossible. Thus, regardless of companies' possible good intentions, women's reproductive autonomy is not well served by offering them company-sponsored AGE banking.