Reproductive Choice: Screening Policy and Access to the Means of Reproduction

Human Rights Quarterly, Vol. 28, No. 2, pp. 438-464, 2006

Posted: 14 Oct 2007 Last revised: 21 Aug 2012

Date Written: 2005

Abstract

This article develops a "human rights lens" and uses it to examine the approaches that are commonly used to screen potential users of fertility services. The article concludes that the practice of screening potential users of reproductive services violates principles of individual self-determination and clearly has the potential to affect the interests of diverse social cultural and ethnic groups adversely. On both these grounds, access screening policies are of profound social and political significance, inconsistent with the principles of equality and self-determination, and violate individual and group human rights. Communities that strive to function in accord with those principles should not permit access screening, even screening that purports to be a benign exercise of professional discretion. Because reproductive choice is controversial, regulation by law may be required in most jurisdictions to provide effective protection for reproductive rights. In Canada, for example, equal access can, and should be, guaranteed by regulations imposing strict conditions on the licences of fertility clinics. The article proposes a regulatory scheme designed to ensure "equal access" of "equal practical value" to all those who choose to use fertility services. *This article is available on JSTOR.*

Keywords: human rights, reproductive rights, access to fertility services

JEL Classification: I18, I19, J78, K19, K33, K42

Suggested Citation

Vandervort, Lucinda, Reproductive Choice: Screening Policy and Access to the Means of Reproduction (2005). Human Rights Quarterly, Vol. 28, No. 2, pp. 438-464, 2006, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=863144

Lucinda Vandervort (Contact Author)

University of Saskatchewan ( email )

Saskatoon, SK S7N 5A6
Canada
(306) 966-5889 (Phone)
(306) 966-5900 (Fax)

Do you have negative results from your research you’d like to share?

Paper statistics

Abstract Views
964
PlumX Metrics