Are Social Relationships Standards for ART Unethical? : A Critical Review of Ethics Committee of the ASRM’s Opinions

Abstract

Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) publisched opinions on ‘Access to fertility treatment by gays, lesbians, and unmarried persons’ four times between 2006 and 2021. This paper aims to review these opinions critically. ASRM finally views the restriction of access to assisted reproductive technology not only for unmarried women, which is a major subject of discussion in Korean society, but also for unmarried men, gays and lesbians, as ‘unethical’. After summarizing the Ethics Committee’s opinions (Chapter II), the validity of the ASRM’s opinions was examined, focusing on Committee’s three main arguments. First of all, ASRM argues that reproductive interests should be protected as a human right called ‘reproductive rights’ regardless of marital status or sexual orientation. This paper examined the theoretical and legal limitations of the concept of ‘reproductive rights’ (Chapter III). Second, ASRM argues that parents' marital status or sexual orientation has no negative effect on children. This paper pointed out the problem of ASRM's approach to frame this issue as a confrontation between ‘normal family ideology’ and ‘science’, and then, the scientific problems, that is, the limitation of data and the problem of hasty generalization(Chapter IV). Third, ASRM argues that the ‘conscientious objection’ of doctors for reason of marital status or sexual orientation is an act that promotes discrimination and oppression, and is a right that violates the current law (Anti-Discrimination Act) and medical ethics, so the enforcement of that right should be limited. This article pointed out the legal and logical limitations of these arguments(Chapter V). Through such a critical review, this paper came to the conclusion that it is difficult to apply ASRM's opinions on the issue to Korean society due to their logical, scientific, and legal limitations. Ultimately, this paper was intended to contribute to publicize that ASRM opinions have a fundamental limitation, that is, the limitation as a ‘utilitarian approach to ethical problems’, in addition to its logical problems.