Ethical Aspect of Infertility Treatment through Surrogacy based on Utilitarian Principle Surrogacy & utilitarianism
Bioethics and Health Law Journal (BHL),
Vol. 1 (2021),
Page 1-8: (e17)
Background and Aim: One of the questions that may be raised about infertility treatment through surrogacy is the ethicality of this approach. There are many methods for the ethical clarification of the medical issues. If we accept the utilitarian philosophers’ views stating that an ethical measure is beneficial to the community and individuals, we may come up with the question whether the actions of the infertile couples or surrogate mother are considered ethical since these actions are beneficial for both individuals and community. Regarding this, the present study aimed to evaluate the infertile treatment through surrogacy based on the ethical theories of utilitarianism.
Materials and Methods: This analytical-descriptive research gathered relevant data in a literature search. After a description of the fundamentals and definitions, ethical texts were subsequently analyzed and one of the viewpoints regarding of Infertility Treatment through Surrogacy Based on Utilitarian Principle was selected.
Ethical Considerations: Ethical principles were considered in searching and citing the literature.
Findings: According to the rule utilitarianism, the ethicality of an action is measured based on its collective benefit and its placement in an ethical principle framework. Therefore, we cannot treat surrogacy like an accepted ethical principle, such as sacrifice, and provide a general rule for the determination of the effect of different social, cultural, economic, and political factors on the people involved in this act. However, the use of this method in different situations and for various people could be very beneficial and be considered ethical.
Conclusion: Although the comprehensive investigation of the harmful use of surrogacy has not been accomplished, the various problems and factors affecting the evaluation of the overall profit and loss of this act grab the possibility of determining its morality as a valid rule in the rule-based ethics. However, such a provision is justified in the utilitarian and pragmatic ethical systems.
Please cite this article as: Nazari Tavakkoli A, Karachian Sani F. Ethical Aspect of Infertility Treatment through Surrogacy based on Utilitarian Principle. Bioeth Health Law J. 2021; 1:1-8: (e17). http://doi.org/10.22037/bhl.v1i1.38171
- Infertile Couple and Ethical Utilitarian
How to Cite
Couture V, Delisle S, Mercier A, Pennings G. The other face of advanced paternal age: a scoping review of its terminological, social, public health, psychological, ethical and regulatory aspects. Human reproduction update. 2021 Mar;27(2):305-23.
council Wh. Infertility treatments for women: a review of the Bio-medical Evidence, : The Womens health council. ; 2009, 15.
Abbasi M, Rezaee R, Dehghani G. Concept and situation of the right to health in Iran legal system. Iranian Journal of Medical Law. 2014 Oct 10;8(30):183-99.
Jadva V, Murray C, Lycett E, MacCallum F, Golombok S. Surrogacy: the experiences of surrogate mothers. Human Reproduction. 2003;18(10):2196-204.
Ferolino AP, Camposo MA, Estaño KC, Tacbobo JM. Mothers for Others: An Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis of Gestational Surrogates’ Child Relinquishment Experiences. Journal of Patient Experience. 2020 Dec;7(6):1336-40. .
Abassi M, Petoft A. Fundamentals of Neurolaw. Tehran: Medical Ethics and Law Research Center, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences. 2019.
Petoft A. Neurolaw: A brief introduction. Iranian journal of neurology. 2015 Jan 5;14(1):53.
Goldfarb JM, Austin C, Peskin B, Lisbona H, Desai N, de Mola JRL. Fifteen years experience with an in-vitro fertilization surrogate gestational pregnancy programme. Human Reproduction. 2000;15(5):1075-8.
Campbell AV. Surrogacy, rights and duties: a partial commentary. Health care analysis. 2000;8(1):35-40.
Putri SF, Prakoso DH, Nur S, Sulistyawati SM. Accounting Students and Business Ethics Perception. In7th Regional Accounting Conference (KRA 2020) 2021 Apr 19 (pp. 224-230). Atlantis Press.
Holmes RL. Basic moral philosophy. 2nd ed ed: Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Pub.; c1998, 129, 137, 137-138.
Bowie B, Bowie R. Ethical studies. Cheltenham, UK.: Nelson Thornes; 2001, 36.
Abbasi M. Petoft A, A historical overview of law and neuroscience: From the emergence of medico-legal discourses to developed neurolaw. Archivio Penale. 2019;1(3):1-48.
Joaquin JJ, Biana HT. Sustainability science is ethics: Bridging the philosophical gap between science and policy. Resources, conservation, and recycling. 2020 Sep;160:104929.
MacIntyre AC. A short history of ethics: a history of moral philosophy from the Homeric age to the twentieth century. 2nd ed ed. London: Routledge; c1998. 234-235, 238.
Bentham J. An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation.: Batoche Books Kitchener. Ch.1.; 2000, 16
McNellie MJ, Oliver I, Dorrough J, Ferrier S, Newell G, Gibbons P. Reference state and benchmark concepts for better biodiversity conservation in contemporary ecosystems. Global Change Biology. 2020 Dec;26(12):6702-14.
Bronowski J, Mazlish B. The western intellectual tradition: From Leonardo to Hegel. England: Penguin Books; 1970, 487-488.
Russell B. Freedom and organization. London: George Allen & Unwin 1952, 114.
Russell B. History of Western philosophy: and its connection with political... London: George Allen and Unwin; 1948, 802..
Petoft A. The Validation Requirments of Neurscientific Evidences before Courts. Iranian Journal of Medical Law. 2021 Apr 10;15(56):431-43.
Abasi M. Petoft A, Citizenship Rights: from the Government Protection to Monitoring on it. Tehran: Justice Publication. 2017:59-65.
Stearns JB. Bentham on Public and Private Ethics. Canadian Journal of Philosophy. 1975;5(4):583-94.
Abbasi M. Petoft A, Current limits of neurolaw: A brief overview. Médecine & Droit. 2020 Apr 1;2020(161):29-34.
Eshbekovich UJ, Jumayevich EN, Abdusalomovna HS. Defects in scientific research of the problems of spiritual and moral crisis and its solution. International Engineering Journal For Research & Development. 2020 Nov 28;5(8):6-.
Timmons M. Moral theory: an introduction. Lanham, Md: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers; c2002, 112-118.
Crisp R. Routledge philosophy guidebook to Mill on utilitarianism. London; New York: Routledge 1997, 29-32.
Hooker B. Ethical theory(rule-consequentialism). first ed: Black well publishing 2007, 486.
Dabbagh S. The Moral, the Transcendental. Tehran, 2008, 47-50.
Ber R. Ethical issues in gestational surrogacy. Theoretical medicine and bioethics. 2000;21(2):153-69.
Corradi C. Motherhood and the contradictions of feminism: Appraising claims towards emancipation in the perspective of surrogacy. Current Sociology. 2021 Mar;69(2):158-75.
Wilkinson S. The exploitation argument against commercial surrogacy. Bioethics. 2003;17(2):169-87.
Smith GP. The Christian religion and biotechnology: a search for principled decision-making: Springer Science & Business Media; 2006, 158-159.
- Abstract Viewed: 0 times
- PDF Downloaded: 0 times