In a posting on practical
ethics Julian Savulescu relates the story of Brad and Melissa’s attempts to
have a baby using IVF with PGD. They did so in order to avoid having a child with
cystic fibrosis or a child who was a carrier of the gene for cystic fibrosis.
Both Brad and Melissa were carriers of this gene. If parents have a child with
cystic fibrosis this costs the state a great deal of money. Having a child cost
Brad and Melissa a lot of money, in addition to their savings they had to sell
their car to pay for the IVF. However the money it cost them was a great deal
less than it would have cost the state had they had a child with cystic
fibrosis. Savulescu argues that the state should bear the cost of IVF with PGD for
parents such as Brad and Melissa because it is unjust to expect them to save
the state money. In reply Khalid Jan and Elselijn Kingma suggest parents, such
as Brad and Melissa, have the option of adopting a child and that because this
option involves no extra costs to the state, indeed it may save the state
money, that the state has no duty to pay for IVF for such parents.
In the following discussion I
will assume for the sake of argument that adoptive children are usually adopted
as babies. I will also assume that these babies don’t have any more potential
health or mental problems than children in general. In practice these assumptions
are not always met. Let us assume couples in a position similar to that of Brad
and Melissa can adopt. If such couples would prefer a child of their own, using
IVF with PGD, to an adopted child then they must have some reasons for this
preference. They must believe there is a difference between nurturing a
biological child and an adopted child. In this posting I want to examine what
these reasons might be.
One difference between
biological and adopted parents is the way they acquire their obligations to
care for their children. The vast majority of biological parents naturally
acquire an obligation to care for their children simply because they create
vulnerable children. They may be certain exceptions such as a fourteen year old
mother, who because she is a child herself, may be unable to fulfil this
obligation, see deceit
and unintentional fathers . Adoptive parents consciously assume this
obligation at the time of adoption. However irrespective of how parents acquire
the duty to care for their children the actual caring seems to be identical. It
follows the difference between the way biological and adopted parents acquire
their obligations to care for their children should not make any difference to
the relationship between a parent and child. It gives no reason why couples
such as Brad and Melissa want a child using IVF rather than adopting one. None the
less such couples are concerned with not just with having any child; they are
concerned with being the child’s biological parents. After all Brad and Melissa
spent a great deal of money and even had to sell their car in order to achieve
this aim.
I will now suggest two
reasons why parents might want to be biological parents. Firstly parents might
want to be biological parents as opposed to adoptive parents simply because
they believe they will have a closer bond with their children due to this bond
being unique. Adopted children have both biological and adoptive parents. Many
adopted children feel the need later in life to seek their biological parents.
This need may weaken the bond a child feels for her adoptive parents. It does
not automatically follow that the bond the adoptive parents feels for their
adopted child is weakened and as a result the first reason fails. A second
reason why mothers might want to be biological mothers is that they believe carrying
their children will increase the maternal bond. This may well be true but I am
doubtful if it is the main reason why many couples in Brad and Melissa’s
position seek IVF with PGD. Let us assume such a couple could have a child with donated gametes and that the woman involved could gestate the child. I would suggest
such a couple would still prefer IVF with PGD and as a result the second reason
fails. The reason for this failure I would further suggest is that they care
about having a child of their own. By a child of their own they mean a child
who is genetically related to them. I would still further suggest when parents
express a preference to be biological parents that this really means they want
to be genetic parents. For instance many mothers who are unable to bear
children, for health reasons such as having a hysterectomy, might prefer a
surrogate to bear their children using her and her partner’s gametes rather
than adopt. But why should parents care that they are genetic parents? Once
again I will suggest it is because they believe that they will have a closer
bond with their genetic children; that they will care about, they will love,
their genetic children more than any children they adopt. In what follows I
will suggest two reasons why parents might have this belief.
The first reason is simply that
evolution designed us to care more for our genetic children than others.
Perhaps those people who acquired caring instincts simply raised more children
to adulthood. Perhaps also evolution designed us to care and to care more for
those genetically related to us. Perhaps then step parents don’t care about
their children as much as genetic parents do. Fairy tales and myths abound with
stories about wicked step parents. Indeed there might be some evidence to
support the claim that step parents care less, see Hofferth and Anderson.
Of course some step parents may behave better most than genetic parents. And of
course some genetic parents may behave atrociously. Someone might object that
even if we do have evolved an instinct to care more for those genetically
related to us this does not mean this is what we ought to do. Modern human
beings are reflective creature. My objector might then argue that after
reflection couples like Brad and Melissa might decide they could care as much
for an adopted child as they would for a genetically related child and as a
result decide that adoption is the best option. In reply I would suggest coming
to care about, coming to love, is not a matter of reflection or choice, see Frankfurt (1). Of course someone may reflect on how to
love or even whether her love is prudent but she cannot simply decide on whom
she will love and the degree of her love. However at the present time there
seems to me there is insufficient evidence to definitely conclude that evolution
means genetic parents love their children more than adoptive parents do.
A second reason why parents might
care about their genetic children more than any children they adopt is that
they will have more common interests. My objector might now suggest that
parents and children come to share interests simply by family life. A child’s
interests are a product of his upbringing. I agree a child’s interests are
partly a product of her upbringing but they are also partly defined her genes.
For instance an adopted child may be strong, supple and as a result excel in
sports due to her genes whilst her adoptive parents may be intellectuals with
no interest whatsoever in sport. Moreover it seems that someone’s personality
is partly determined by their genes. It follows parents who bring up their
genetic children will have more interests in common with these children than
any children they adopt. My objector might suggest this does not by itself show
they care about their genetic children more than any adopted children. I agree
with my objector that more shared interests does not supply any reason as to why
genetic parents should have a greater disposition to care about their children
than adoptive parents. It follows in this sense of
caring about there is no reason why adoptive parents should love their children
any less than biological parents. However there is more to caring about or loving
than having a disposition to love; I am here assuming the terms love and care
about are interchangeable. I do not actively love when I am asleep or when I am
concentrating on my next golf shot. Actively loving someone means sharing her
interests, if I have no concern for her interests I simply don’t love her. It
is easier to share interests if these are interests I already possess, see aspergers
autism and love . It follows there is a
reason why genetic parents might be more loving towards their children than adoptive
parents. It also follows parents carrying genes for inherited diseases can
justify their desire for a child of their own using IVF with PGD.
In
conclusion parents such as Brad and Melissa do have the option of adopting but
most of them would prefer a child which is genetically related to them by using
IVF with PGD. Moreover it would seem they have sound reasons for this
preference. Personally I would support their preference. However I am not sure whether or not the State has an obligation to help them satisfy this preference. After
all some children might have a preference to be adopted.
1.
Frankfurt , H. (1999)
Necessity, Volition, and Love. Cambridge University Press, page 135.
