Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Providing Equal Opportunity to Ectogenesis

  • Chapter
Equal Opportunity and the Case for State Sponsored Ectogenesis

  • 101 Accesses

Abstract

Kendal considers a number of possible distribution methods for ectogenesis services, concluding that state sponsored services are an ethical requirement to ensure equality of opportunity is not compromised for women of low socio-economic status. Alternative allocation methods considered include a user-pay system, priority on the basis of medical need and utilitarian considerations. This discussion is set within Australia’s public healthcare system, Medicare.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. Gwen Gray, ‘Access to Medical Care under Strain: New Pressures in Canada and Australia,’ Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law 23, no. 6 (1998): 909.

    Google Scholar 

  2. David Lairson, et al., ‘Equity of Health Care in Australia,’ Social Science Medicine 41, no. 4 (1995): 475.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Eddy van Doorslaer, et al., ‘Horizontal Inequities in Australia’s Mixed Public/Private Health Care System,’ Health Policy 86, no. 1 (2008): 98.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Stephen R. Leeder, ‘Achieving Equity in the Australian Healthcare System,’ Medical Journal of Australia 179, no. 9 (2003): 476.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Matthew Tonts and Ann-Claire Larsen, ‘Rural Disadvantage in Australia: A Human Rights Perspective,’ Geography 87, no. 2 (2002): 137

    Google Scholar 

  6. Nigel Rice and Peter C. Smith, ‘Ethics and Geographical Equity in Health Care,’ Journal of Medical Ethics 27, no. 4 (2001): 256–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Danielle Herbert, et al., ‘Early Users of Fertility Treatment with Hormones and IVF: Women Who Live in Major Cities and Have Private Health Insurance,’ Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health 34, no. 6 (2010): 629.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Robert Blank, ‘Assisted Reproduction and Reproductive Rights: The Case of In Vitro Fertilization,’ Politics and the Life Sciences 16, no. 2 (1997): 279.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Jacky Boivin, et al., ‘The Fertility Quality of Life (FertiQoL) Tool: Development and General Psychometric Properties,’ Human Reproduction 26, no. 8 (2011): 2084–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Joâo Souza, et al., ‘The Prolongation of Somatic Support in a Pregnant Woman with Brain-Death: A Case Report,’ Reproductive Health 3, no. 1 (2006): 3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Anindya Sen, ‘Is Health Care a Luxury? New Evidence from OECD Data,’ International Journal of Health Care Finance and Economics 5, no. 2 (2005): 159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Barbara Henry, et al., ‘Institutional Racism in Australian Healthcare: A Plea for Decency,’ Medical Journal of Australia 180, no. 10 (2004): 517.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Michael Kidd, et al., ‘Primary Health Care Reform: Equity Is the Key,’ Medical Journal of Australia 189, no. 4 (2008): 221.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Robert Nozick, Anarchy, State, and Utopia ( New York: Basic Books, 1974 ), 233.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Uwe Reinhardt, ‘Resource Allocation in Health Care: The Allocation of Lifestyles to Providers,’ The Milbank Quarterly 65, no. 2 (1987): 168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Norman Daniels, Just Health: Meeting Health Needs Fairly ( Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008 ), 175.

    Google Scholar 

  17. J. Wilson, ‘Not So Special after All? Daniels and the Social Determinants of Health,’ Journal of Medical Ethics 35, no. 1 (2009): 2; Gray, ‘Access to Medical Care under Strain,’ 909.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Farhat Yusuf and Stefania Siedlecky, ‘Female Sterilizing Operations in New South Wales: A Demographic Perspective,’ Journal of the Australian Population Association 15, no. 1 (1998): 75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Maxwell Mehlman and Karen Visocan, ‘Medicare and Medicaid: Are They Just Health Care Systems?’ Houston Law Review 29, no. 4 (1992): 852.

    Google Scholar 

  20. J.C. Patel and M.H. Johnson, ‘A Survey of the Effectiveness of the Assessment of the Welfare of the Child in UK In-Vitro Fertilization Units,’ Human Reproduction 13, no. 3 (1998): 766; Gunsburg, ‘Frozen Life’s Dominion,’ 2205–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Kathryn Ehrich, et al., ‘Social Welfare, Genetic Warfare? Boundary-Work in the IVF/PGD Clinic,’ Social Science & Medicine 63 (2006): 1213–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Margaret A. Somerville, ‘Birth Technology, Parenting and “Deviance”,’ International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 5 (1982): 123–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Wayne R. Gillett, et al., ‘Development of Clinical Priority Access Criteria for Assisted Reproduction and Its Evaluation on 1386 Infertile Couples in New Zealand,’ Human Reproduction 27, no. 1 (2011): 131–41

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Anita Stuhmucke, ‘Lesbian Access to In Vitro Fertilisation,’ Australasian Gay and Lesbian Law Journal 7 (1997): 15–40; Patel and Johnson, ‘A Survey,’ 768

    Google Scholar 

  25. Valarie Blake, ‘It’s an ART Not a Science: State-Mandated Insurance Coverage of Assisted Reproductive Technologies and Legal Implications for Gay and Unmarried Persons,’ Minnesota Journal of Law, Science and Technology 12, no. 2 (2011): 680.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Richard Cookson and Paul Dolan, ‘Principles of Justice in Health Care Rationing,’ Journal of Medical Ethics 26, no. 5 (2000): 326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Jennifer Ruger, Health and Social Justice (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 19; 23.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Oommen C. Kurian, ‘Rationalising Rationing: The Curious Case of Economic Evaluation in Health,’ Social Scientist 36, no. 7/8 (2008): 41.

    Google Scholar 

  29. John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism ( Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1906 ), 319.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Peter Singer, et al., ‘Double Jeopardy and the Use of QALYs in Health Care Allocation,’ Journal of Medical Ethics 21, no. 3 (1995): 150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Mary Anne Warren, ‘The Moral Significance of Birth,’ Hypatia 4, no. 3 (1989): 50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Saeko Kikuzawa, et al., ‘Similar Pressures, Different Contexts: Public Attitudes toward Government Intervention for Health Care in 21 Nations,’ Journal of Health and Social Behavior 49, no. 4 (2008): 389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Susan Ettner, et al., ‘How Low Birthweight and Gestational Age Contribute to Increased Inpatient Costs for Multiple Births,’ Inquiry 34, no. 4 (1997): 325.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Loane Skene, ‘Recent Developments in Stem Cell Research: Social, Ethical, and Legal Issues for the Future,’ Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies 17, no. 2 (2010): 232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Monash University, Australia

    Evie Kendal

Authors
  1. Evie Kendal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Copyright information

© 2015 Evie Kendal

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Kendal, E. (2015). Providing Equal Opportunity to Ectogenesis. In: Equal Opportunity and the Case for State Sponsored Ectogenesis. Palgrave Pivot, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137549877_5

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation