We are all being called to consider ways we can act differently to minimise our impact on the environment. While we seem to be getting the message about reusing and recycling should greater consideration be given to our growing population and its impact on the environment?
Bioethics ‘experts’ in the US think so. In a recent journal article they argue that one way to limit our growing population (see here for some interesting statistics on our crowded planet:
www.worldometers.info/world-population/ ) would be to limit who can be offered IVF treatment (see here for some background to IVF:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_vitro_fertilisation ).
As reported in The Telegraph: “The paper, by academics from Boston College, Massachusetts, argues that fertility treatment should only be funded for those who are medically infertile, in order to keep the population down, and to reduce the “bloated carbon footprint” of the medical industry".
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10988963/Single-women-should-not-get-free-IVF-say-ethics-expert... The article raises several interesting issues: To what extent should 'health care' as an industry consider its impact on the environment and if IVF is something that should be limited how might we decide who gets treated?
"Author Professor Cristina Richie, from Boston College, said free IVF should be limited to those who are medically infertile – and not provided to single fertile women, same sex couples, and those who have previously undergone sterilisation.
Since the 1970s, more than 5 million babies have been created via fertility treatment, with little consideration to the impact on the planet."
UK bioethicists have added to the debate:
"Dr Brassington, Lecturer In Bioethics and Medical Law at Manchester University, said the concept of a “right to reproduce” should be reconsidered, and suggested a “duty to adopt” should be examined, so that those who seek to have a family should at least think about adoption.
“There’s lots of ink spilled over who should have access to infertility treatment, for sure, but there is a good deal less time devoted to the question of whether facilitating reproduction is always a good thing to begin with.”
Not everyone agrees with the bioethicists. Ann Furedi, chief executive of the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, said:
“To call for infertility clinics to be subject to carbon capping schemes and suggest single women and same-sex couples should have their reproductive choices restricted to save the planet is offensive to the point of being beyond parody. The implication that children born of IVF are a burden not a benefit is a deeply unpleasant one.”
What do you think? Should anyone be able to seek IVF treatment or as the bioethicists suggest, should this procedure be limited to just those who are infertile?
Image:
www.monash.edu.au