Non-medical egg freezing and individualisation arguments

Reply to Moen, Segers and Campo-Engelstein

Bibliographic Data

ID21515418
AuthorsThomas Søbirk Petersen (0000-0002-1955-8165, Roskilde University, corresponding author)
Year2021
Volume47
Issue4
Pages265-266
Publication date2021-04-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessNo
TypeARTICLE
VenueJournal of Medical Ethics (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0306-6800 • E-ISSN: 1473-4257
PublisherBMJ (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1136/medethics-2021-107319
PMID33674444
OpenAlexW3134201613
LanguageEN
References cited4

An argument against the use of non-medical egg freezing (NMEF) is that women should not use NMEF as it is an individualistic and morally problematic answer to the social problems that women face, for instance, in the labour market. Instead of allowing or expecting women to deal with these problems individually, we should address them by challenging the patriarchal structure of the labour market—for example, by securing equal pay and affordable childcare. In a recent article in Journal of Medical Ethics (JME), I argue that we should distinguish between different versions of this kind of reasoning and that all the versions discussed are implausible.1 In three separate comments following my article in the March 2021 issue of JME, Moen,2 Segers3 and Campo-Engelstein4 have supported and criticised some of my results. It is impossible, in such a short reply, to discuss all of their many relevant comments in detail, but in what follows I will reply to some of their criticism. Moen presents several interesting comments; let me try to deal with what I take to be the two most important ones. The first of these deals with some of my critical comments concerning

Criticism · Economics · Epistemology · Individualism · Law and economics · Methodological individualism · Political science · Positive economics · Social science · Sociology · Law · Medicine · Philosophy · Reproductive Health and Technologies

Tools

Open DOI