Response to Professor John Rock's Essay on Reproductive Revolutions
Click here to contribute your own ideas to this discussion.
I am writing to express my thoughts in response to the question raised by John Rock on assisted reproductive technology. "The argument centers around the use of donor sperm to treat severe male infertility, as opposed to using donor sperm to assist women without a male partner." I am concerned that the stance taken is a convenient way in which to justify discrimination against a minority (gay couples) who already unfortunately remain largely unprotected under both federal and state laws and do not enjoy the same benefits most heterosexual married couples take for granted. These are the same individuals who pay taxes and insurance premiums side by side their heterosexual neighbors yet do not benefit financially from such things as filing taxes jointly.
The argument given attempts to divert attention away from overt discrimination and centers on what is "medically necessary". I think we all know of many instances in which patients are treated and sometimes even covered by insurance for medically unnecessary procedures (cosmetic surgery). Still others deceive the system by altering the diagnosis to be consistent with a procedure that might be medically indicated (rhinoplasty for septal deviation).
Although I would agree we need to be responsible and not allow practicing "boutique" medicine, I fail to see the difference between someone with blocked fallopian tubes who recieves donor eggs or a male partner with a low sperm count and a women without a male partner who uses donor sperm. Both are elective procedures, people don't need to reproduce to live, their very existence is not altered by this inability. The couple with blocked fallopian tubes or a low sperm count isn't cured by receiving gametes but are simply treated by circumventing the problem they have with regard to conception. Why then should a female with a healthy reproductive system whose only problem is lack of sperm be treated any differently? I would caution those of us in medicine to be very careful with our power and status in dealing with medical decisions and to leave our own personal bias with regard to political and religious views at the door of the examining room. Patients trust and rely upon us to guide, counsel and treat them without fear or discrimination. I believe whatever stance we choose should be consistent for all people and that we should not pick and choose treatment options or bend the rules to suit our own personal bias while masquerading behind something more socially palatable.
Karen A. Newell PA-C
Academic Coordinator
Emory University School of Medicine Physician Assistant Program