Nowadays, novel techniques such as Reciprocal effortless in vitro fertilization (ReIVF) enable two individuals to “carry the same pregnancy,” that is to “carry” the same embryo in both their bodies. However, even though these techniques are likely to be increasingly requested, little is known about their safety and efficacy, and much less about their bioethical legitimacy and issues. Considering their uniqueness, this study assesses the compatibility of ReIVF as well as of another similar technique with the classical principles of medical (...) ethics: autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence, and justice. The aim is twofold: (i) to start investigating whether these techniques and their underlying reasons are, or could ever be, bioethically justifiable and (ii) to make clinicians and any other potentially interested persons such as researchers, lawmakers and prospective parents themselves are more aware of the health and social implications of using these techniques. Hence, after a brief overview of the technical aspects of the procedures that allow two persons to carry the same pregnancy, this study offers a general moral framework that can be useful for starting to address some relevant aspects of these procedures, such as their benefits and harms on the health of the individuals involved, the reasons behind their use, and the possibility that they might be covered by states in the future. Finally, this study provides a bioethical overview on ReIVF as well as on similar techniques considering different perspectives, while also suggesting some questions and recommendations for further research. (shrink)

The question of whether donors should be able to set conditions on who can receive their tissue has been discussed by bioethicists, but so far there has been little consideration of whether the answer to this question should be different depending on the type of tissue under discussion. In this article, we compare the donation of organs with the donation of reproductive material such as sperm, eggs, and embryos, exploring possible arguments for allowing donors to set conditions in one case (...) but not the other. After considering arguments from procreative liberty, special parental obligations, and donors meeting their genetic offspring, we find that there is no ethically defensible reason to have different policies between these two cases. As a consequence, we conclude that jurisdictions operating with this inconsistency should consider moving their policies into better alignment. We also make some recommendations for the standardisation of the terminology around conditional donation. (shrink)