Ectogenesis, justice and utility: a reply to James

Bioethics. 1987 Oct;1(4):372-9. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8519.1987.tb00020.x.

Abstract

KIE: In one chapter of their 1984 book The Reproductive Revolution (published in North America as Making Babies), Wells and Peter Singer make a case for the development of ectogenesis, the complete gestation of a human fetus outside the womb. David N. James responded with "Ectogenesis: a reply to Singer and Wells" (Bioethics, 1987 Jan; 1(1): 80-99), in which he refuted one of their arguments at length, opposed two briefly, and set two aside. Here Wells answers James, devoting most of his essay to reiterating an argument for ectogenesis based on the justice of remedying a correctable disability (infertility) by allocating resources to develop a biotechnology (ectogenesis). Wells then touches upon James's response to the Wells/Singer argument for ectogenesis as a possible solution to the abortion dilemma. He concludes by commenting briefly on the arguments about ectogenesis and parenting, and on ectogenesis as a source of transplantable tissue and organs.

MeSH terms

  • Abortion, Legal
  • Adoption
  • Artificial Organs*
  • Biomedical Technology
  • Ectogenesis*
  • Ethical Theory
  • Ethics*
  • Female
  • Fetal Tissue Transplantation
  • Fetus
  • Health Care Rationing
  • Human Rights*
  • Humans
  • Infertility
  • Methods
  • Moral Obligations
  • Parent-Child Relations
  • Public Policy
  • Reproduction
  • Reproductive Techniques, Assisted*
  • Resource Allocation
  • Risk Assessment*
  • Risk*
  • Social Justice
  • Social Responsibility
  • Surrogate Mothers
  • Tissue Donors
  • Tissue and Organ Procurement
  • Uterus*

Personal name as subject

  • David James
  • Peter Singer