Being the Right Kind of Parent: Conceiving People

International Journal of Feminist Approaches to Bioethics 16 (1):193-200 (2023)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Being the Right Kind of Parent:Conceiving PeopleCamisha Russell (bio)Daniel Groll's Conceiving People makes one central claim regarding the ethics of using egg or sperm donations to create a child (that one intends to parent): "[P]arents should use an open donor because doing so puts their resulting child in a good position to satisfy the child's likely future interest in having genetic knowledge" (Groll 2021, 12, original italics).Amid myriad thorny ethical questions surrounding assisted reproduction, Groll's decision to focus on a choice that intended parents in need of donor gametes must make before their future child is even conceived—a choice that is typically taken very seriously—makes a lot of sense. The question is live, rarely completely determined as a matter of policy or law, and, as Groll demonstrates, important to most donor-conceived people (and therefore to the families of which they are a part). For this increasing number of individuals and families, a cultural shift in how we think about open versus anonymous donors would have a significant (and as Groll argues, positive) impact.Groll's carefully built argument is important not only for the paths of ethical reasoning that it highlights, but for those common rationales it gently but firmly sets aside (e.g., the donor-conceived person's medical need to know their genetic history or the idea that knowledge of one's genetic origins is the best or only way to truly know oneself). Groll's work is attentive to the types of relationships that foster the emotional health of families, and it's grounded in the experiences and desires articulated by donor-conceived people themselves. For this reader, these are the book's greatest strengths, along with the fact that Groll is often quite funny in his examples, which makes the examples highly relatable.Of course, the challenge for philosophers in writing books of ethical importance for "laypeople" is to offer something an average educated adult can understand while addressing the more technical theoretical issues that matter to ethicists. I would expect Groll's text to satisfy ethicists because his definitions and distinctions are scrupulously clear, and he engages the existing philosophical literature well. As for laypeople, there are surely a few moments in which they will find themselves in the theoretical weeds, so to speak, but Groll has [End Page 193] successfully made the book largely modular, such that they should get a lot from just reading the chapters of direct interest (Groll 2021, 29).Chapter 2, "Keeping Secrets," is essential for intended parents seeking ethical guidance. Groll notes that professional opinion on donor conception has shifted from seeing nondisclosure of a child's donor-conceived status as a moral requirement (to protect privacy and avoid family stigma) to recommending disclosure. He then reviews standard arguments for disclosure: (1) the "profound importance" of known genetic origins to health identity formation, (2) the medical importance of knowing to whom you are (and are not) genetically related, and (3) the harm that keeping secrets can do to family members and family functioning. While Groll agrees with the latter two arguments, he introduces and emphasizes a new argument: the Intimacy argument, in which he convincingly argues that keeping a child's genetic origins secret "violates norms of intimacy by creating distance between parents and children that is at odds with the demands of intimacy in the parent-child relationship" (Groll 2021, 44, original italics). Though, in many ways, this chapter's argument is separate from the central argument for the use of open donors constructed in the rest of the book, I find it compelling and wonder whether it could hold up more of the open donor argument, placing less weight on the Significant Interest view that Groll introduces in the next chapter (and the concerns regarding bionormativity that emerge from that view).In the third chapter, Groll moves from disclosure to the information that's available to be disclosed. That is, it is one thing to commit to telling a child they were donor-conceived after conception. It is another to commit before conception to choosing a donor willing to be known to the future child when...

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 92,261

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Introduction to the Symposium on Daniel Groll’s Conceiving People.Alice MacLachlan - 2023 - International Journal of Feminist Approaches to Bioethics 16 (1):163-165.
Anonymous Versus Open Donation and Queerness as Political: Comments on Groll’s Conceiving People.Amanda Roth - 2023 - International Journal of Feminist Approaches to Bioethics 16 (1):166-181.
That Many of Us Should Not Parent.Lisa Cassidy - 2006 - Hypatia 21 (4):40-57.
That many of us should not parent.Lisa Cassidy - 2001 - Hypatia 21 (4):40-57.
On the Transmission of the Bacchae.C. W. Willink - 1966 - Classical Quarterly 16 (02):347-.
On the Transmission of the Bacchae.C. W. Willink - 1966 - Classical Quarterly 16 (2):347-347.
The Ignorant Perfection of Ordinary People (review).Jill P. Baumgaertner - 1992 - Philosophy and Literature 16 (2):380-381.
The Best Available Parent.Anca Gheaus - 2021 - Ethics 131 (3):431-459.
Representing the Parent Analogy.Jannai Shields - 2022 - European Journal for Philosophy of Religion 13 (4).
On the Immorality of Lying to Children About Their Origins.Sonya Charles - 2011 - Philosophy in the Contemporary World 18 (2):22-33.

Analytics

Added to PP
2023-04-20

Downloads
14 (#995,076)

6 months
7 (#439,760)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations