Does anyone 'need' stem cell derived sperm cells and egg cells?

Many people highly value genetic parenthood and regard it as an important life goal. People who desire to have a child, but who are unable to conceive naturally, are often willing to go to great lengths to establish a genetic link with their future child by means of assisted reproductive technologies (ARTs). Options in which neither parent or only one of both parents is genetically linked to the child – such as donor conception or adoption – or abandonment of the pursuit of parenthood are oftentimes regarded as inferior options or last resorts. Currently, the prospect of deriving patient-specific sperm cells and oocytes from human stem cells is believed to open new ways to genetic parenthood but the level of manipulation is unseen. Apart from technical considerations about the feasibility of this technique, this also raises the question whether the drawbacks of this new technology – safety risks and cost – will be justified by the desire/need for genetic parenthood. The meaning of this desire/need for genetic parenthood is in want of clarification. In the past, new discoveries and inventions in the field of ART have been justified by reference to a supposed ‘right to reproduce’ and ‘procreative rights’ have even been invoked to claim access to infertility treatments. Such presumed rights seem to implicitly or explicitly rely on the premise that genetic parenthood constitutes a basic human need, rather than a mere desire. This leads to a plethora of philosophical questions about the conceptual meaning and moral relevance of ‘needs’. Many different, often contradictory conceptions of needs have been suggested in the literature. Needs have alternately been recognised as well as denied to be relative in nature, normative in nature, linked to harm, linked to human nature, or linked to normal species functioning. Relative to the conception of need, infertility has been considered or denied to be a disease, whether or not constitutive of a health-care need. It will be argued that the current understanding of ‘need’ is equivocal. Consequently, the ethical analysis of the accessibility, the acceptable risks, and the justice concerns linked to the use of stem cell derived gametes in a search for genetic parenthood will depend on one’s interpretation of ‘need’.Many people highly value genetic parenthood and regard it as an important life goal. People who desire to have a child, but who are unable to conceive naturally, are often willing to go to great lengths to establish a genetic link with their future child by means of assisted reproductive technologies (ARTs). Options in which neither parent or only one of both parents is genetically linked to the child – such as donor conception or adoption – or abandonment of the pursuit of parenthood are oftentimes regarded as inferior options or last resorts. Currently, the prospect of deriving patient-specific sperm cells and oocytes from human stem cells is believed to open new ways to genetic parenthood but the level of manipulation is unseen. Apart from technical considerations about the feasibility of this technique, this also raises the question whether the drawbacks of this new technology – safety risks and cost – will be justified by the desire/need for genetic parenthood. The meaning of this desire/need for genetic parenthood is in want of clarification. In the past, new discoveries and inventions in the field of ART have been justified by reference to a supposed ‘right to reproduce’ and ‘procreative rights’ have even been invoked to claim access to infertility treatments. Such presumed rights seem to implicitly or explicitly rely on the premise that genetic parenthood constitutes a basic human need, rather than a mere desire. This leads to a plethora of philosophical questions about the conceptual meaning and moral relevance of ‘needs’. Many different, often contradictory conceptions of needs have been suggested in the literature. Needs have alternately been recognised as well as denied to be relative in nature, normative in nature, linked to harm, linked to human nature, or linked to normal species functioning. Relative to the conception of need, infertility has been considered or denied to be a disease, whether or not constitutive of a health-care need. It will be argued that the current understanding of ‘need’ is equivocal. Consequently, the ethical analysis of the accessibility, the acceptable risks, and the justice concerns linked to the use of stem cell derived gametes in a search for genetic parenthood will depend on one’s interpretation of ‘need’.C