Contested Reproduction: Ethical Dilemmas in Assisted Reproductive Technologies—A Literature Review

  • Irina G. Polyakova Ural Federal University, Yekaterinburg, Russia; Institute of Philosophy and Law of the Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Yekaterinburg, Russia
DOI: https://doi.org/10.15826/csp.2026.10.3.402

Abstract

Assisted reproductive technologies (ART) have expanded reproductive possibilities while generating significant ethical controversy. Their rapid development has consistently outpaced social, regulatory, and ethical consensus, producing clashes of values, moral conflict, and periodic moral panics. While some technologies have become broadly normalized, others remain deeply contested. This literature review maps the major fault lines of debate across five issues: access to ART and discrimination; the moral and legal status of the embryo; preimplantation genetic testing; anonymous and commercial gamete donation; and posthumous reproduction. Drawing on empirical research from multiple national contexts, the review considers the perspectives of patients, clinicians, donors, and donor-conceived persons alongside those of professional bioethicists. Three dilemmas recur throughout: the tension between reproductive autonomy and child welfare; the persistent gap between technological possibility and ethical or regulatory consensus; and the risk of commodifying reproductive material and relationships. The review concludes that ART ethics resists resolution within any single national or cultural framework, and that meeting its challenges requires sustained, inclusive, and internationally informed public deliberation.

Author Biography

Irina G. Polyakova, Ural Federal University, Yekaterinburg, Russia; Institute of Philosophy and Law of the Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Yekaterinburg, Russia

Irina G. Polyakova, Cand. Sci. (Sociology), Deputy Director for General Affairs of the Ural Institute of Humanities, Ural Federal University; Senior Researcher of the Institute of Philosophy and Law, Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Her research interests include psychological support in assisted reproductive technologies (ART), motivations for reproductive donation by type of gamete, the donor’s role as a partner, advantages and disadvantages of donor anonymity, donor–recipient dyad dynamics (married couples), methods of psychological support in reproductive donation, and strategies to assist recipients in decision-making and acceptance of donor material. She is the author (co-author) of more than 40 publications indexed in the WoS and Scopus databases.

References


  • Althorpe, C., & Finneron-Burns, E. (2023). Are saviour siblings a special case in procreative ethics? Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy, 26(1), 49–73. https://doi.org/10.26556/jesp.v26i1.2623

  • Appiah, D., & Ganle, J. K. (2024). Ethical constraints and dilemmas in the provision of in-vitro fertilization treatment in Ghana: From the perspectives of experts. BMC Medical Ethics, 25, Article 114. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-024-01113-0

  • Areias, J. C. O. (2020). Motivations and attitudes of men towards male gamete donation: Donate to whom and why? [Doctoral dissertation, University of Porto]. Open Repository of the University of Porto. https://doi.org/10.34626/h6vn-xk60

  • Asplund, K. (2020). Use of in vitro fertilization—Ethical issues. Upsala Journal of Medical Sciences, 125(2), 192–199. https://doi.org/10.1080/03009734.2019.1684405

  • Ball, P. (2021, October 17). Polygenic screening of embryos is here, but is it ethical? The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/oct/17/polygenic-screening-of-embryos-is-here-but-is-it-ethical

  • Banh, D., Havemann, D. L., & Phelps, J. Y. (2010). Reproduction beyond menopause: How old is too old for assisted reproductive technology? Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics, 27(7), 365–370. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-010-9418-3

  • Barlevy, D., Cenolli, I., Campbell, T., Furrer, R., Mukherjee, M., Kostick-Quenet, K., Carmi, S., Lencz, T., Lázaro-Muñoz, G., & Pereira, S. (2024). Patient interest in and clinician reservations on polygenic embryo screening: A qualitative study of stakeholder perspectives. Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics, 41(5), 1221–1231. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-024-03074-0

  • Batzer, F. R., Hurwitz, J. M., & Caplan, A. (2003). Postmortem parenthood and the need for a protocol with posthumous sperm procurement. Fertility and Sterility, 79(6), 1263–1269. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0015-0282(03)00384-4

  • Bay, B., Larsen, P. B., Kesmodel, U. S., & Ingerslev, H. J. (2014). Danish sperm donors across three decades: Motivations and attitudes. Fertility and Sterility, 101(1), 252–257. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.09.013

  • Bhattacharyya, S. (2006). Magical progeny, modern technology: A Hindu bioethics of assisted reproductive technology. State University of New York Press.

  • Bracken, L. (2020). Same-sex parenting and the best interests principle. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108684460

  • Burke, R., Ollada Lavery, Y., Katznelson, G., North, J., & Boyd, J. W. (2021). How do individuals who were conceived through the use of donor technologies feel about the nature of their conception? Center for Bioethics, Harvard Medical School. https://bioethics.hms.harvard.edu/journal/donor-technology

  • Casteels, P., Nekkebroeck, J., & Tournaye, H. (2024). Perspectives on sperm donor anonymity: Insights from donor-conceived adults in Belgium. Human Reproduction, 39(9), 2021–2031. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deae160

  • Cavaliere, G., & Fletcher, J. R. (2021). Age-discriminated IVF access and evidence-based ageism: Is there a better way? Science, Technology, & Human Values, 47(5), 986–1010. https://doi.org/10.1177/01622439211021914

  • Cohen, C. B. (2002). Protestant perspectives on the use of the new reproductive technologies. Fordham Urban Law Journal, 30(1), 135–145.

  • Cornthwaite, K., Goedeke, S., Shepherd, D., & Rodino, I. (2023). Student views on recognition and payment options for gamete donation in New Zealand. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 63(6), 753–759. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajo.13702

  • de Clercq, E., Martani, A., Vulliemoz, N., Elger, B. S., & Wangmo, T. (2023). Rethinking advanced motherhood: A new ethical narrative. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, 26(4), 591–603. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-023-10172-w

  • de Lacey, S., Rogers, W., Braunack-Mayer, A., Avery, J., Smith, D., & Richards, B. (2012). Perceptions of embryo status and embryo use in an Australian community. Reproductive BioMedicine Online, 24(7), 727–744. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2012.01.014

  • Dembinska, A. (2012). Bioethical dilemmas of assisted reproduction in the opinions of Polish women in infertility treatment: A research report. Journal of Medical Ethics, 38(12), 731–734. https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2011-100421

  • Draghici, C. (2024). Procreative rights in international law: Insights from the European Court of Human Rights. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009443982

  • Ehrich, K., Williams, C., & Farsides, B. (2008). The embryo as moral work object: PGD/IVF staff views and experiences. Sociology of Health and Illness, 30(5), 772–787. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9566.2008.01083.x

  • Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. (2006). Access to fertility treatment by gays, lesbians, and unmarried persons. Fertility and Sterility, 86(5), 1333–1335. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2006.08.085

  • Furrer, R. A., Barlevy, D., Gandhi, A., Carmi, S., Lencz, T., Pereira, S., & Lázaro-Muñoz, G. (2025). Survey of U.S. reproductive medicine clinicians’ attitudes on polygenic embryo screening. npj Genomic Medicine, 10, Article 79. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41525-025-00530-3

  • Gat, I., Ronen, M., Avraham, S., Youngster, M., Hourvitz, A., & Levtzion-Korach, O. (2024). Israeli students’ perceptions regarding sperm donation: Dilemmas reflections with dominant demographic effect. Reproductive Health, 21, Article 37. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12978-024-01767-4

  • Goldfarb, J. (2019). Interplay of public perception and fertility guidelines. Fertility and Sterility, 111(3), 459–460. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2018.12.005

  • Grauman, Å., & Drevin, J. (2022). Perceptions on using surplus embryos for the treatment of Parkinson’s disease among the Swedish population: A qualitative study. BMC Medical Ethics, 23, Article 15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-022-00759-y

  • Gürtin, Z. B., & Vayena, E. (2012). Reproductive donation: Global perspectives and cultural diversity. In M. Richards, G. Pennings, & J. B. Appleby (Eds.), Reproductive donation: Practice, policy, and bioethics (pp. 70–89). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139026390.005

  • Harrison, B. J., Hilton, T. N., Rivière, R. N., Ferraro, Z. M., Deonandan, R., & Walker, M. C. (2017). Advanced maternal age: Ethical and medical considerations for assisted reproductive technology. International Journal of Women’s Health, 9, 561–570. https://doi.org/10.2147/IJWH.S139578

  • Hashiloni-Dolev, Y., & Triger, Z. (2020). The invention of the extended family of choice: The rise and fall (to date) of posthumous grandparenthood in Israel. New Genetics and Society, 39(3), 250–270. https://doi.org/10.1080/14636778.2019.1709429

  • Hens, K., Bonduelle, M., de Die-Smulders, C., & Liebaers, I. (2019). Blurring boundaries: Interviews with PGT couples about comprehensive chromosome screening. European Journal of Medical Genetics, 62(12), Article 103604. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejmg.2018.12.009

  • Heying, C. (2014, September 19). Court grants custody of frozen embryos after parents’ death in car crash. The Global Times. https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/201409/882284.shtml

  • Hudson, N., Culley, L., Rapport, F., Johnson, M., & Bharadwaj, A. (2009). “Public” perceptions of gamete donation: A research review. Public Understanding of Science, 18(1), 61–77. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662507078396

  • Ignjatović, S., & Mijic, C. (2017). New reproductive technologies and religion in Serbia and Croatia. In M. Blagojević & Z. Matić (Eds.), Religion in contemporary society: Thematic conference proceedings of international significance held in Srebrno jezero (Veliko Gradiste), May 19−20, 2017 (pp. 115–132). Institute of Social Sciences; Department of Education and Culture, Serbian Orthodox Diocese of Branicevo.

  • Isaksson, S., Sydsjö, G., Skoog Svanberg, A., & Lampic, C. (2012). Disclosure behaviour and intentions among 111 couples following treatment with oocytes or sperm from identity-release donors: Follow-up at offspring age 1–4 years. Human Reproduction, 27(10), 2998–3007. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/des285

  • Kerridge, I. H., Jordens, C. F. C., Benson, R., Clifford, R., & Ankeny, R. A. (2010). Religious perspectives on embryo donation and research. Clinical Ethics, 5(1), 35–45. https://doi.org/10.1258/ce.2009.009046

  • Kippen, R., Gray, E., & Evans, A. (2018). High and growing disapproval of sex-selection technology in Australia. Reproductive Health, 15, Article 134. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12978-018-0577-5

  • Kocourková, J., Konečná, H., Burcin, B., & Kučera, T. (2015). How old is too old? A contribution to the discussion on age limits for assisted reproduction technique access. Reproductive BioMedicine Online, 30(5), 482–492. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2015.01.017

  • Kuek, C. Y., Gurmukh Singh, S. K., & Tay, P. S. (2021). Conception of saviour siblings: Ethical perceptions of selected stakeholders in Malaysia. Asian Bioethics Review, 13(2), 167–178. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41649-021-00166-2

  • Kvernflaten, B., Fedorcsák, P., & Solbrække, K. N. (2022). Kin or research material? Exploring IVF couples’ perceptions about the human embryo and implications for disposition decisions in Norway. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, 19(4), 571–585. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-022-10214-7

  • Lampic, C., Skoog Svanberg, A., & Sydsjö, G. (2009). Attitudes towards gamete donation among IVF doctors in the Nordic countries—Are they in line with national legislation? Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics, 26(5), 231–238. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-009-9311-0

  • Lampic, C., Skoog Svanberg, A., & Sydsjö, G. (2014). Attitudes towards disclosure and relationship to donor offspring among a national cohort of identity-release oocyte and sperm donors. Human Reproduction, 29(9), 1978–1986. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deu152

  • Lee, M. S., Farland, L. V., Thomas, A. M., & Ginsburg, E. S. (2019). Public perspectives on placing age limits on men and women seeking fertility treatment. Fertility and Sterility, 111(3), 497–504. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2018.11.019

  • Lindblad, F., Gottlieb, C., & Lalos, O. (2000). To tell or not to tell—What parents think about telling their children that they were born following donor insemination. Journal of Psychosomatic Obstetrics and Gynecology, 21(4), 193–203. https://doi.org/10.3109/01674820009085588

  • Maguire, A. (2021). An examination into the embryo disposal practices of Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority licensed fertility centers in the United Kingdom. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 30(1), 161–174. https://doi.org/10.1017/S096318012000064X

  • Meyer, M. N., Tan, T., Benjamin, D. J., Laibson, D., & Turley, P. (2023). Public views on polygenic screening of embryos. Science, 379(6632), 541–543. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.ade1083

  • Mortimer, R. M., Waldman, I. N., Leader, J. E., Lee, M. S., Ginsburg, E. S., & Lanes, A. (2024). Predictors of gamete donation: A cross sectional survey study. Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics, 41(9), 2327–2336. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-024-03194-7

  • Munday, S., & Savulescu, J. (2021). Three models for the regulation of polygenic scores in reproduction. Journal of Medical Ethics, 47(12), Article e91. https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2020-106588

  • Nikolaos. (2008). The Greek Orthodox position on the ethics of assisted reproduction. Reproductive BioMedicine Online, 17(Suppl. 3), 25–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1472-6483(10)60327-6

  • Núñez-Calonge, R., Guijarro, A., Santamaría, N., Poveda, Nieto, P., Sola, A., Rodríguez, N., Rubio, T., Iñiguez, J., González, P., Alberola, P., Zaari, D., Domínguez, J. A. (2021). Patients’ attitudes towards the anonymity of gamete donation in Spain. Human Reproduction, 36(Suppl. 1), Article deab130.487. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deab130.487

  • Pennings, G., & de Wert, G. (2003). Evolving ethics in medically assisted reproduction. Human Reproduction Update, 9(4), 397–404. https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmg031

  • Pennings, G., Mocanu, E., Herrmann, J. R., Skytte, A.-B., Burke, C., & Pacey, A. (2021). Attitudes of sperm donors towards offspring, identity release and extended genetic screening. Reproductive BioMedicine Online, 43(4), 700–707. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2021.06.025

  • Polyakov, A., & Rozen, G. (2023). Exploring the complexities of posthumous reproduction in fertility preservation for oncology patients with poor prognosis. Reproduction and Fertility, 4(4), Article e230072. https://doi.org/10.1530/RAF-23-0072

  • Raimondi, C., Giardina, S., Masilla, S. S., Refolo, P., Todini, C., & Spagnolo, A. G. (2026). Posthumous assisted reproduction and post-mortem paternity. Frontiers in Reproductive Health, 8, Article 1783702. https://doi.org/10.3389/frph.2026.1783702

  • Rank, N. (2010). Barriers for access to assisted reproductive technologies by lesbian women: The search for parity within the healthcare system. Houston Journal of Health Law & Policy, 10, 115–146. [The international LGBT public movement is recognized as an extremist organization, with its activities banned on the territory of the Russian Federation. Международное общественное движение ЛГБТ признано в России экстремистской организацией, чья деятельность запрещена на территории РФ.]

  • Ravelingien, A., Provoost, V., Wyverkens, E., Buysse, A., De Sutter, P., & Pennings, G. (2015). Recipients’ views on payment of sperm donors. Reproductive BioMedicine Online, 31(2), 225–231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2015.04.016

  • Ronen, M., Kedem, A., Avraham, S., Youngster, M., Yerushalmi, G., Hourvitz, A., & Gat, I. (2023). Motivational stimuli to donate sperm among non-donor students. Basic and Clinical Andrology, 33(1), Article 29. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12610-023-00201-2

  • Sabatello, M. (2014). Posthumously conceived children: An international and human rights perspective. Journal of Law and Health, 27(1), 29–67.

  • Sallam, H. N., & Sallam, N. H. (2016). Religious aspects of assisted reproduction. Facts, Views & Vision in Obstetrics and Gynecology, 8(1), 33–48.

  • Samorinha, C., De Freitas, C., Baía, I., Machado, H., Vale-Fernandes, E., & Silva, S. (2020). Payment to gamete donors: Equality, gender equity, or solidarity? Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics, 37(1), 133–140. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-019-01625-4

  • Scala, F., & Orsini, M. (2022). Problematising older motherhood in Canada: Ageism, ableism, and the risky maternal subject. Health, Risk & Society, 24(3–4), 149–166. https://doi.org/10.1080/13698575.2022.2057453

  • Schondorf-Gleicher, A., Mochizuki, L., Orvieto, R., Patrizio, P., Caplan, A. S., & Gleicher, N. (2022). Revisiting selected ethical aspects of current clinical in vitro fertilization (IVF) practice. Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics, 39(3), 591–604. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-022-02439-7

  • Selter, J. H., Woodward, J., & Neal, S. (2023). Survey assessing policies regarding patient age and provision of fertility treatment in the United States. Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics, 40(9), 2117–2127. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-023-02877-x

  • Siermann, M., Vermeesch, J. R., Raivio, T., Vanhie, A., Peeraer, K., Tšuiko, O., & Borry, P. (2024). Perspectives of preimplantation genetic testing patients in Belgium on the ethics of polygenic embryo screening. Reproductive BioMedicine Online, 49(3), Article 104294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2024.104294

  • Soni, S., & Savulescu, J. (2021, October 20). Polygenic embryo screening: Ethical and legal considerations. The Hastings Center for Bioethics. https://www.thehastingscenter.org/polygenic-embryo-screening-ethical-and-legal-considerations/

  • Wheatley, A. (2018). Danish sperm donors and the ethics of donation and selection. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, 21(2), 227–238. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-017-9797-7

  • Wynne, B. (1996). Misunderstood misunderstandings: Social identities and public uptake of science. In A. Irwin & B. Wynne (Eds.), Misunderstanding science? The public reconstruction of science and technology (pp. 19–46). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511563737.002

  • Zierhut, H., MacMillan, M. L., Wagner, J. E., & Bartels, D. M. (2013). More than 10 years after the first ‘savior siblings’: Parental experiences surrounding preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 22(5), 594–602. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-013-9591-5

Published
2026-10-05
How to Cite
Polyakova, I. (2026). Contested Reproduction: Ethical Dilemmas in Assisted Reproductive Technologies—A Literature Review. Changing Societies & Personalities, 10(3), 608-627. doi:10.15826/csp.2026.10.3.402
Citation Formats
Issue
Vol. 10, No. 3 (2026)
Section
Articles
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.