Exam Law and Ethics of Reproductive Technologies
Vrije Universiteit | 28 January 2021 | 18:45 h – 21:30 h
This open book exam consists of 2 essay questions. Each question determines 50% of the
final grade. You have 2 hours and 45 minutes to answer both questions in English.
Use your essay to showcase your understanding of the course’s main themes, concepts and
literature. Formulate your answers as much as possible in your own words. If you
nevertheless want to quote the literature, please use quotation marks. When you use
arguments from the literature, don’t forget to mention briefly whose argument you are
referring to.
When marking the essay questions, we will focus on the legal-ethical and academic quality
of the line of argumentation and will award points for the explanation and application of
the concepts that are mentioned in the assignment (see a, b, c) as well as your answer to
the main question of the assignment (highlighted in bold). Additionally, we will take into
account the structure and composition of the essay; the degree of originality and
creativity; and the extent to which the student manages to take position and comes to a
critical evaluation of the arguments used in the literature.
Good luck!
QUESTION 1: DONOR SPERM FACEBOOK GROUPS
The coronavirus pandemic has led to a shortage of donated sperm in sperm banks
and fertility clinics worldwide. Due to the virus, men have stopped donating in clinics,
while the demand has increased rapidly. According to Michelle Ottey, the director of
one of US’s biggest sperm banks, the company is selling 20 percent more sperm now
than a year before. She thinks that the reason for this increase in demand is that “by
having a child, people are trying to find some hope [in these unprecedented times].”
As sperm banks cannot provide enough supply, donors and customers find each other
by different means. According to the New York Times, “[donors] meet with prospective
mothers-to-be in Airbnbs for an afternoon handoff; Facebook groups with tens of
thousands of members have sprung up”. The problem with the donors in these groups
is, however, that they do not always follow the rules pertaining to the maximum number
of women that a donor can cater to; such donors donate to as many women as they
want. They often do not have families of their own, but think that their genes deserve
to survive. One popular 30-year-old sperm donor told the NY Times that he “just
wanted to get his numbers up”, meaning the number of children he could produce in
the world. Due to the fact that existing rules are circumvented in these Facebook
groups, legislatures in various countries are thinking about prohibiting the groups.
Prospective parents such as single women, lesbian couples or couples with fertility
problems are, however, grateful for the establishment of such Facebook groups. Ms.
Byrd, for example, who is now pregnant by means of a donor from such a group, told
the NY Times that because of the large number of available Facebook donors, she
“can choose a donor who is smarter and more attractive than someone she meets
romantically day to day”. Furthermore, the trajectory of becoming pregnant is much
, cheaper than the financial strain that sperm banks would cause. As Ms. Byrd told the
NY Times, her baby “only cost $136”.
Assignment:
Write an essay in which you develop your legal-ethical opinion about the following
question: do you believe that the practice of these “donor sperm Facebook
groups” fairly balances the reproductive interests of both sperm donors and
prospective parents on the one hand, and the interests of future children on the
other hand?
Build your essay around the following concepts:
a) reproductive rights as established by the ECtHR, and the possible limits of
these rights in case such Facebook groups would be prohibited;
b) what we owe to future children according to both Glover and Sandel;
c) the commercialisation and commodification of reproduction.
You can earn points for the explanation of each concept and its application to the issue
at hand.
In the current pandemic is has become clear that more people are searching for
hope in these troubled times. They want to do this by having a child of their own.
Due to the increased demand and the decreased supply of donor sperm created a
market where Facebook groups were used to find donors outside of the medical
circuit. Legislators want to crack down on these groups as they circumvent the rules
set to keep medical standards high in clinics. Users in these groups point out
however that this option is cheaper and that they have more choice in the man they
want to get sperm from.
In the ECHR family life is present and people in favour of these kinds of groups would
point to the fact that in accordance with ECHR article 8(3) they would have the right to
start a family and thus these groups should not be prohibited. However, the banning
of these kinds of groups would not breach this article as was found in the Case of S.H
and others versus Austria. In this case it was found that the banning of this style of
donation was not in breach of article 8 of the ECHR. This case was focussed on the
donation of eggs, but this case does set the precedent for a similar case to be made
for the prohibition of the sale of sperm. The sale of sperm via these Facebook groups
could make for family dynamics that are not fully desired and thus the state would fall
inside the margin of appreciation and thus have the right to ban these groups.
The selling of sperm could also infringe on the human dignity as the selling of
sperm could be seen as selling part of your body. This would breach the human dignity
in regard to constraint. As human dignity as constraint is there to protect people
against dehumanizing practices. It would however not breach human dignity as
empowerment as the people selling sperm have the right to decide what to do but, in
this situation, human dignity as constraint weighs heavier then human dignity as
empowerment in my opinion. Since these kinds of groups are ripe for abuse and this
is something that we should prevent, and this should weigh higher than the choice to
sell your sperm.
Vrije Universiteit | 28 January 2021 | 18:45 h – 21:30 h
This open book exam consists of 2 essay questions. Each question determines 50% of the
final grade. You have 2 hours and 45 minutes to answer both questions in English.
Use your essay to showcase your understanding of the course’s main themes, concepts and
literature. Formulate your answers as much as possible in your own words. If you
nevertheless want to quote the literature, please use quotation marks. When you use
arguments from the literature, don’t forget to mention briefly whose argument you are
referring to.
When marking the essay questions, we will focus on the legal-ethical and academic quality
of the line of argumentation and will award points for the explanation and application of
the concepts that are mentioned in the assignment (see a, b, c) as well as your answer to
the main question of the assignment (highlighted in bold). Additionally, we will take into
account the structure and composition of the essay; the degree of originality and
creativity; and the extent to which the student manages to take position and comes to a
critical evaluation of the arguments used in the literature.
Good luck!
QUESTION 1: DONOR SPERM FACEBOOK GROUPS
The coronavirus pandemic has led to a shortage of donated sperm in sperm banks
and fertility clinics worldwide. Due to the virus, men have stopped donating in clinics,
while the demand has increased rapidly. According to Michelle Ottey, the director of
one of US’s biggest sperm banks, the company is selling 20 percent more sperm now
than a year before. She thinks that the reason for this increase in demand is that “by
having a child, people are trying to find some hope [in these unprecedented times].”
As sperm banks cannot provide enough supply, donors and customers find each other
by different means. According to the New York Times, “[donors] meet with prospective
mothers-to-be in Airbnbs for an afternoon handoff; Facebook groups with tens of
thousands of members have sprung up”. The problem with the donors in these groups
is, however, that they do not always follow the rules pertaining to the maximum number
of women that a donor can cater to; such donors donate to as many women as they
want. They often do not have families of their own, but think that their genes deserve
to survive. One popular 30-year-old sperm donor told the NY Times that he “just
wanted to get his numbers up”, meaning the number of children he could produce in
the world. Due to the fact that existing rules are circumvented in these Facebook
groups, legislatures in various countries are thinking about prohibiting the groups.
Prospective parents such as single women, lesbian couples or couples with fertility
problems are, however, grateful for the establishment of such Facebook groups. Ms.
Byrd, for example, who is now pregnant by means of a donor from such a group, told
the NY Times that because of the large number of available Facebook donors, she
“can choose a donor who is smarter and more attractive than someone she meets
romantically day to day”. Furthermore, the trajectory of becoming pregnant is much
, cheaper than the financial strain that sperm banks would cause. As Ms. Byrd told the
NY Times, her baby “only cost $136”.
Assignment:
Write an essay in which you develop your legal-ethical opinion about the following
question: do you believe that the practice of these “donor sperm Facebook
groups” fairly balances the reproductive interests of both sperm donors and
prospective parents on the one hand, and the interests of future children on the
other hand?
Build your essay around the following concepts:
a) reproductive rights as established by the ECtHR, and the possible limits of
these rights in case such Facebook groups would be prohibited;
b) what we owe to future children according to both Glover and Sandel;
c) the commercialisation and commodification of reproduction.
You can earn points for the explanation of each concept and its application to the issue
at hand.
In the current pandemic is has become clear that more people are searching for
hope in these troubled times. They want to do this by having a child of their own.
Due to the increased demand and the decreased supply of donor sperm created a
market where Facebook groups were used to find donors outside of the medical
circuit. Legislators want to crack down on these groups as they circumvent the rules
set to keep medical standards high in clinics. Users in these groups point out
however that this option is cheaper and that they have more choice in the man they
want to get sperm from.
In the ECHR family life is present and people in favour of these kinds of groups would
point to the fact that in accordance with ECHR article 8(3) they would have the right to
start a family and thus these groups should not be prohibited. However, the banning
of these kinds of groups would not breach this article as was found in the Case of S.H
and others versus Austria. In this case it was found that the banning of this style of
donation was not in breach of article 8 of the ECHR. This case was focussed on the
donation of eggs, but this case does set the precedent for a similar case to be made
for the prohibition of the sale of sperm. The sale of sperm via these Facebook groups
could make for family dynamics that are not fully desired and thus the state would fall
inside the margin of appreciation and thus have the right to ban these groups.
The selling of sperm could also infringe on the human dignity as the selling of
sperm could be seen as selling part of your body. This would breach the human dignity
in regard to constraint. As human dignity as constraint is there to protect people
against dehumanizing practices. It would however not breach human dignity as
empowerment as the people selling sperm have the right to decide what to do but, in
this situation, human dignity as constraint weighs heavier then human dignity as
empowerment in my opinion. Since these kinds of groups are ripe for abuse and this
is something that we should prevent, and this should weigh higher than the choice to
sell your sperm.
