|
Kari L. Karsjens
excerpted from: Kari L. Karsjens, BouTique Egg
Donations: a New Form of Racism and Patriarchy, 5 DePaul Journal of
Health Care Law 57-89, 78-81 (Summer 2002)(188 Footnotes)
Critical race theory is highly relevant to the issue of boutique egg
donation for a variety of reasons. First, the entire premise of boutique
egg donation is to perpetuate certain characteristics that are deemed
salient by a select few. Wealthy couples, who utilize egg brokers or
high profile advertisements, do not seek general traits. These couples
are seeking a "perfect gene pool" for their commodity - notice
the highly sought after donor is a woman who has blonde hair, blue eyes,
received a 1400 on her SAT, attends an Ivy League school, and who
preferably has some additional talents such as music, sports, or
theatre.
A brief overview of egg donor "profiles" from a well known
fertility clinic indicates the same result. Out of 95 egg donor
profiles, only eleven included women of color. Of these eleven minority
egg donors, three were Asian-American, three were African-American, and
four were Hispanic-American. Granted, this is only a selected summary,
but given the overwhelming majority of egg donors were of Caucasian,
European descent, the additional donor profiles would make a marginal
difference in racial diversity composition.
Given that some egg brokerage firms have a "dossier book"
of prospective donors with mandatory photographs and resumes, is it any
more shocking to think that since the technology exists to genetically
select certain genes, that the wealthy, well educated strata of society
will attempt to seize racial selection to their advantage? It is a fact
that the couples who are seeking Advanced Reproductive Technology (ART),
are not underprivileged minorities in inner cities. Rather, the typical
profile of a woman utilizing ART is an upper middle class woman in her
mid to late 30's, who has at least a Bachelor's degree, and who is more
likely than not, white.
In short, racial characteristics matter for prospective families.
Linking the disparate number of minority donors and the overwhelming
number and demand for white donors, critical race theorists view as
suspicious the profitable practice of encouraging a racial hegemony by
limited minorities access to the ART services, as well as limited the
type of donors recruited to one race. As related to concepts of passing
and assimilation, the mere fact of being "white" and the
racial desirability of a "white child" carries inherent
privilege, while simultaneously oppressing and delegitimatizing those of
non-white birth.
The issue of access to ART services thus calls into question the
motivations and intentions of having medical reproductive technology
services available for a limited subsection of society. Critical race
theory scholarship questions the significance of race in existing legal
structures. Why is there such a premium on having the "perfect
child" ? Why is there an obsession to have a "biological
child" at all costs? What is to be said for the implications of a
woman who bears a child via egg donation, but who is not actually
genetically related to that child? What stories or disclosures must that
woman willingly tell her child - so that her child knows the truth about
its origins? What policy decisions will have to be made regarding the
right of privacy and confidentiality of egg donors? More importantly, is
it fair to ask the already over burdened tax payers to shoulder the
costs of litigation, debate, and outcry that will be associated with
"boutique egg donations" ?
There exists but a scintilla of answers to these questions, but some
interesting theoretical conclusions can be drawn. Critical race theory
has a vested interest in analyzing the motivations and intentions of
couples who utilize boutique egg donation because if race matters, then
the crucial question for analysis is the message being sent when the
highest paid donors are of one race. When one factors in other relevant
considerations related to race, such as social status, prestige, power,
and preference - consideration must be given to what generalizations and
conclusions are expressed to women of color.
A related issue for consideration is whether the competing legal
interests and minimal judicial recognition of a property right in cells
and tissues can provide a basis of choice for contemplated genetic
manipulation. It is suggested that the unrestrained exercise by parents
of genetic changes in anoffspring constitutes a clear abuse of [if any
are in fact ascribed] those possessory interests.
As detailed earlier, there may be broad public policy reasons for
denying the procreative right to alter genetic trait. First, if only the
wealthy have the resources to alter the appearance and intelligence of
their offspring, is there a competing social rationale that requires
equalization of that proprietary right? Second, is the analysis on
property rights overreaching - the danger is that many individuals are
equating proprietary rights regarding "whether" to reproduce
with exercising control over "how" to reproduce. Third, and
most importantly, is there an identifiable social policy interest that
requires the preservation of that random condition, or do procreative
proprietary rights extend to choices of eye, hair, and skin color,
gender, intelligence and personality? |
