In Vitro: Whites Only Therapy, But Everyone Pays (through the Nose) for It

Christine Gudorf's thoughtful essay on the McCaughey septuplets (Bulletin No. 4, May/June) focuses on ethical questions concerning God's will and individuals' moral responsibility for the reproductive choices they make. This focus reflects a common approach to reproduction. Reproduc-tive rights are often framed as a matter of individual autonomy and freedom from government interference in personal procreative decision making. For most Americans, reproductive freedom means the right to choose. Discussion about the ethics of reproduction tends to center on the morality of the choices people make.

If we focus too intently on whether or not the McCaugheys made the right decision when they chose to have seven more children, we miss far more critical issues raised by reproduction-assisting technologies. We should not be asking whether the McCaugheys contravened a moral consensus but what a moral social policy regarding fertility enhancement would be. At present, there are disturbing race and class disparities in policies concerning childbearing. The current consensus on the use of reproductive technologies appears to treat white middle-class couples and poor minority families in stark contrast. The fertility business serves primarily white people even though blacks have a higher infertility rate. White women seeking treatment for fertility problems are twice as likely as black women to use high-tech treatments, such as in vitro fertilization (IVF). Many black Americans were troubled by the celebration accompanying the birth of the McCaughey children, who are white, when compared with the media's disregard of a black couple in Washington, D.C., who conceived six babies (without medical intervention) at about the same time.

Full article: http://www.parkridgecenter.org/Page124.html