Fox Dov
University of San Diego School of Law, San Diego, CA 92110-2492, USA.
J Law Biosci. 2018 Jun 12;5(2):355-374. doi: 10.1093/jlb/lsy011. eCollection 2018 Aug.
The late John Robertson is renowned for the theory of 'procreative liberty' that he expounded in his pioneering book, . Procreative liberty captures the 'freedom to reproduce without sex' above and beyond the 'freedom to have sex without reproduction' that are recognized by constitutional rights to abortion and birth control. Most controversial among Robertson's work on procreative liberty was its application to prenatal selection. Unless the state had very good reasons, he argued, people should be free to access reproductive medicine or technology to have a child who or would be born with particular traits. Prospective parents in the USA today face no official limits in using sperm banks, egg vendors, IVF clinics, or surrogacy agencies with an eye toward choosing for certain characteristics. But should they be protected, this essay asks, when mix-ups or misdiagnoses thwart the selection of offspring traits? The best answer to this question extends the theory of procreative liberty from government restrictions to professional negligence. It also demands sensitivity to genetic uncertainty, the limits of private law, and the history of eugenics in America. Or so I argue in this tribute to the inimitable John Robertson.
已故的约翰·罗伯逊因其在开创性著作中阐述的“生育自由”理论而闻名。生育自由涵盖了“无性生殖的自由”，这超越了宪法赋予堕胎和节育权利所认可的“有性但无生殖的自由”。罗伯逊关于生育自由的著作中最具争议的是其在产前选择方面的应用。他认为，除非国家有充分的理由，否则人们应该能够自由地利用生殖医学或技术来生育具有特定特征的孩子。如今，美国的准父母在使用精子库、卵子供应商、试管婴儿诊所或代孕机构以选择特定特征时，并未面临官方限制。但本文提出，当混淆或误诊阻碍了后代特征的选择时，他们是否应该受到保护？对这个问题的最佳答案是将生育自由理论从政府限制扩展到专业疏忽。它还要求对基因不确定性、私法的局限性以及美国优生学的历史保持敏感。至少我在这篇致敬独一无二的约翰·罗伯逊的文章中是这么认为的。
