Childbearing: Re-production or Creation

Occupation: Associate professor of fundamental Medicine Section
Affiliation: Institute for the Medicine and Psychology of the Novosibirsk State University
Address: Russian Federation, Novosibirsk

Journal name

Chelovek

Edition

Volume 32 Issue №6

Pages

135-149

Abstract

The assisted reproduction possibilities, enhanced by the technology of gene editing, are considered in the context of the demographic trend to rationalize childbearing, expressed in the formula “a desired child at a desired time”. Applying of gene editing in human embryos illustrates the transition from quantitative measurements of procreation to the choice of the child "quality". The gene editing in the human embryo is presented as a consistent development of technological interventions into the area of human reproduction, it acts as a link in the expansion of implementation of the preimplantation diagnosis (PGD) of embryos method. When in the case of PGD the main purpose was selection, then nowadays it becomes possible to combine the selection of embryos with the modification of the genetic structure. The participation of geneticists in artificial reproduction increases the efficiency of IVF cycles and at the same time enhances the technological prosthetics of the childbearing process. Following the increase of supply in artificial reproduction, it becomes possible not just to plan a pregnancy, but also to control genetic bases that are still beyond human control, but also to determine the characteristics of an unborn child. A new anthropological situation of displacement or substitution of the value aspects of procreation, understood as procreation, i.e. a human creation, by reproduction - the production, the construction of an ability to give birth to a child first and then the children themselves. As a result, the meanings of childbearing are transformed, the reproductive attitudes and parents' intentions change. Arguments in discussions about the admissibility of intervention with the embryonic genome reflect contradictions in understanding the value of natural foundations in human birth, which are presented in procreation and reproduction opposition. An orientation towards the “quality” of children in social terms has its maintain in a transformation of family ties, in a values shift of kinship and parenthood. Thus, the gene-editing of the embryo enhances two tendencies in demographic behaviour: concern for the child “quality”, which entails eugenic consequences, and a constructive and technological trend in reproduction that threatening the natural foundations of procreation.

Keywords

bioethics, assisted reproduction, procreation, childbearing, preimplantation genetic diagnosis of embryos, genome editing, human design

Acknowledgment

The study was carried out with the financial support of a grant the RSCF (project «Human and a new technological order. Anthropological foresight» No 21-18-00103)

Received

27.12.2021

Publication date

27.12.2021

Number of characters

25961

Cite

GOST	Sidorova T. Childbearing: Re-production or Creation // Chelovek – 2021. – V. 32. – Issue №6 C. 135-149 [Electronic resource]. URL: https://chelovek-journal.ru/S023620070018014-2-1 (circulation date: 06.05.2024). DOI: 10.31857/S023620070018013-1
MLA	Sidorova, Tatiana A "Childbearing: Re-production or Creation." Chelovek 32.6 (2021):135-149. DOI: 10.31857/S023620070018013-1
APA	Sidorova T. (2021). Childbearing: Re-production or Creation. Chelovek 32(6), pp.135-149 DOI: 10.31857/S023620070018013-1

100 rub.

When subscribing to an article or issue, the user can download PDF, evaluate the publication or contact the author. Need to register.

Number of purchasers: 0, views: 440

Readers community rating: votes 0

1. Ariès P. Chelovek pered litsom smerti [L'Homme devant la mort], transl. from French by V.K. Ronin. Moscow: Progress Publ., 1992.

2. Belyaletdinov R.R., Popova O.V., Tishchenko P.D., Shevchenko S.Yu. Bioeticheskiye vyzovy tekhnologiy redaktirovaniya genoma embrionov cheloveka [Bioethical Challenges of Human Genome Editing Technologies in Embryos]. Voprosy Filosofii. 2021. N 5. P. 70–82.

3. Britanok prizyvayut zamorozit' yaytsekletki poka ne pozdno [British women are urged to freeze eggs before it's too late]. MEDNovosti. 2006 [Electronic resource]. URL: https://medportal.ru/mednovosti/britanok-prizyvayut-zamorozit-yaytsekletki-poka-ne-pozdno-91c85ded-75d6-4a32-bfcd-264ac249cba9/ (date of access: 05.11.2021).

4. Vishnevskiy A.G. Demorgrafiya i traditsiya [Demography and tradition]. Demoskop Weekly. 2011. N 473–474. P. 1–26.

5. Grebenshchikova E.G., Andreyuk D.S., Volchkov P.Y., et al. Redaktirovaniye genoma embrionov cheloveka: mezhdistsiplinarnyy podkhod [Human embryo genome editing: an interdisciplinary approach]. Vestnik Rossiyskoy akademii meditsinskikh nauk. 2021. Vol. 76. N 1. P. 86–92.

6. Zakharov S.V., Sakevich V.I. Osobennosti planirovaniya sem'i i rozhdayemost' v Rossii: kontratseptivnaya revolyutsiya — svershivshiysya fakt? [Features of family planning and fertility in Russia: the contraceptive revolution is it a fait accompli?]. Roditeli i deti, muzhchiny i zhenshchiny v sem'ye i obshchestve, ed. by T.M. Malevaya, O.V. Sinyavskaya. Moscow: NISP Publ., 2007. P. 127–170.

7. Jonas H. Printsip otvetstvennosti. Opyt etiki tekhnologicheskoy tsivilizatsii [The Imperative of Responsibility: In Search of an Ethics for the Technological Age], transl. from German by I.I. Mahan'kov. Moscow: Iris-Press Publ., 2004.

8. Kon I.S. Detstvo kak sotsial'nyy fenomen [Childhood as a social phenomenon]. The Journal of Social Policy Studies. 2010. N 2. P. 151–174.

9. Lekhtsiyer V.L. Meditsina 4P i situatsiya novogo Edipa: ekzistentsial'nyye effekty bioprediktsii. [Medicine 4P and the situation of the new Oedipus: existential effects of bioprediktion]. Rabochiye tetradi po bioetike. Iss. 21: Filosofsko–antropologicheskiye osnovaniya personalizirovannoy meditsiny (mezhdistsiplinarnyy analiz): sb. nauch. st. [Bioethics workbooks. Issue 21: Philosophical and anthropological foundations of personalized medicine (interdisciplinary analysis): collection of scientific articles], ed. by P.D. Tishchenko. Moscow: Moscow University for the Humanities Publ., 2015. P. 137–171.

10. Popova O.V. Chelovek kak artefakt biotekhnologiy [Human as an artifact of biotechnology]. Moscow: Kanon+ ROII Reabilitatsiya Publ., 2017.

11. Rusanova N.E. Gender choice in assisted reproductive technologies: opportunities, dangers, prospects. Narodonaselenie [Population]. 2020. Vol. 23. N 2. P. 125–135.

12. Steering Committee Bioethics (CDBI) Protection of the Human Embryo In Vitro. Report by the Working Party on the Protection of the Human Embryo and Fetus (CDBI-CO-GT3), transl. by L.A. Reznichenko, ed. by B.G. Yudin, L.F. Kurilo. Strasbourg, 2003 [Electronic resource]. URL: https://www.coe.int/t/dg3/healthbioethic/texts_and_documents/CDBI-CO-GT3 (2003)13E.pdf (date of access: 05.11.2021).

13. Sidorova T.A. Antropologicheskiye riski surrogatnogo roditel'stva [Anthropological risks of surrogate parenting]. Algebra rodstva. Rodstvo. Sistemy rodstva. Sistemy terminov rodstva. Iss. 14, ed. by V.A. Popov. St. Petersburg.: The Peter the Great Museum of Anthropology and Ethnography RAS Publ., 2013. P. 104–120.

14. Habermas J. Budushcheye chelovecheskoy prirody. Na puti k liberal'noy yevgenike [The Future of Human Nature], transl. from German by M. Hor'kov. Moscow: Ves' Mir Publ., 2002.

15. Bostrom N. Human Genetic Enhancements: A Transhumanist Perspective. The Journal of Value Inquiry. N 37. 2003. Р. 493–506.

16. Cavaliere G. Background Paper “The Ethics of Human Genome Editing”. WHO Expert Advisory Committee on Developing Global Standards for Governance and Oversight of Human Genome. London: Department of Global Health and Social Medicine, King’s College London, 2019.

17. Chesterton G.K. Appreciations and Criticisms of the Works of Charles Dickens. London: J. M. Dent & Sons, LTD. New York: E. P. Button & Co. Chapter III “Pickwick Papers”, 1911. [Electronic resource]. URL: https://ia902607.us.archive.org/25/items/appreciations00chesuoft/appreciations00chesuoft.pdf (date of access: 05.11.2021).

18. Duster T. Eugenics. Enzyclopedia of Bioethics. Vol. 1, ed. by Stepen G. Post. New York: Macmillan reference, 2004. Р. 855.

19. Gyngell C., Bowman-Smart H., Savulescu J. Moral reasons to edit the human genome: Picking up from the Nuffield report. Journal of Medical Ethics. 2019. N 45. P. 514–523.

20. Sidorova T. Philosophical analysis of procreation in the value dimension. Population and Economics. 2020. N 4. Р. 57–66.