IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlawss/v3y2014i2p282-300d36814.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Should Postponing Motherhood via “Social Freezing” Be Legally Banned? An Ethical Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Stephanie Bernstein

    (Department of Medical Ethics and History of Medicine, University Medical Center Goettingen, Humboldtallee 36, Goettingen 37073, Germany)

  • Claudia Wiesemann

    (Department of Medical Ethics and History of Medicine, University Medical Center Goettingen, Humboldtallee 36, Goettingen 37073, Germany)

Abstract

In industrial societies, women increasingly postpone motherhood. While men do not fear a loss of fertility with age, women face the biological boundary of menopause. The freezing of unfertilized eggs can overcome this biological barrier. Due to technical improvements in vitrification, so-called “social freezing” (SF) for healthy women is likely to develop into clinical routine. Controversial ethical debates focus on the risks of the technique for mother and child, the scope of reproductive autonomy, and the medicalization of reproduction. Some criticize the use of the technique in healthy women in general, while others support a legally defined maximum age for women at the time of an embryo transfer after oocyte cryopreservation. Since this represents a serious encroachment on the reproductive autonomy of the affected women, the reasons for and against must be carefully examined. We analyze arguments for and against SF from a gendered ethical perspective. We show that the risk of the cryopreservation of oocytes for mother and future child is minimal and that the autonomy of the women involved is not compromised. The negative ethical evaluation of postponed motherhood is partly due to a biased approach highlighting only the medical risks for the female body without recognizing the potential positive effects for the women involved. In critical accounts, age is associated in an undifferentiated way with morbidity and psychological instability and is thus used in a discriminatory way. We come to the conclusion that age as a predictor of risk in the debate about SF is, from an ethical point of view, an empty concept based on gender stereotypes and discriminatory connotations of aging. A ban on postponing motherhood via SF is not justified.

Suggested Citation

  • Stephanie Bernstein & Claudia Wiesemann, 2014. "Should Postponing Motherhood via “Social Freezing” Be Legally Banned? An Ethical Analysis," Laws, MDPI, vol. 3(2), pages 1-19, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlawss:v:3:y:2014:i:2:p:282-300:d:36814
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2075-471X/3/2/282/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2075-471X/3/2/282/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Oecd, 1999. "After-Hours Use of Schools," PEB Exchange, Programme on Educational Building 1999/10, OECD Publishing.
    2. Frederik Peters, 2010. "Späte Mutterschaft als medizinischer Risikofaktor?: Der Einfluss des Alters der Mutter auf das Risiko der Frühgeburt," SOEPpapers on Multidisciplinary Panel Data Research 342, DIW Berlin, The German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.

      Corrections

      All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jlawss:v:3:y:2014:i:2:p:282-300:d:36814. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

      If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

      If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

      If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

      For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

      Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

      IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.