Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism is interested in the greater good. Utilitarians ask what the outcomes of infertility treatments are. They would balance the pleasure of having a baby against the anguish of unsuccessful treatments.
Bentham's Hedonic Calculus could be used here. His theory said that it was more important to avoid pain than bring about pleasure, so he would be concerned with the high failure rate of treatments like IVF. However, the immense pleasure of having a baby could outweigh the pain of an unsuccessful IVF treatment.
Utilitarians give very different answers to questions about infertility treatments because they are are consequentialist. They have no problems with spare embryos
Kant's Ethical Theory
Kant is interested in the 'good will', a will that does the right thing regardless of the outcome. He would not be interested in the agony of childlessness.
To find out what the right thing is, kant would firstly universalise a maxim, turning it into a universal law. He would then ask whether that law was a contradiction of the wil (an imperfect duty) or a self-contradiction (a perfect duty).
IVF involves destroying spare embryos. This is not self-contradictory - you could have a universal law that said all spare embryos are destroyed. However, it would be a contradiction of the will, because if you truly make it a universal law, it could have been you who was destroyed. It would be contrary to your will to have been destroyed as an embryo.
Sperm, egg and embryo donation (whether paid or unpaid) might not be contrary to the will. For example, in a case where one couple has IVF paid for if they donate some eggs to another couple who are infertile - we may think this is a perfectly acceptable situation. However, Kant says we should never be used 'merely as a means to an end'. Even if donation is voluntary, a sperm or egg donor is using their own humanity as a means to an end. Kant would particularly be against the sale of sperm or eggs.
Some Kantians may argue that, if they are being paid, a donor is not being used merely as a means to an end. However, this view does not represent the spirit of Kant's theory.
Natural Law
Reproduction is one of the five primary precepts of Natural Law. Put another way, one of the reasons why God made humans, according to Aquinas, was to reproduce - that was their purpose.
However, although reproduction is an essential aspect of human nature, Natural Law requires that we follow deontological principles, the secondary precepts that derive from the primary precepts. Precepts such as 'Do not kill' are absolute - there are no exceptions. Therefore it would be wrong ro break one precept to fulfil another.
Natural Law sees the destruction of embryos in IVF as completely wrong. It also views the involvement of a third party (such as in egg, sperm or embryo donation, as an attack on the sanctity of marriage. One primary precept is that we should live in an ordered society. If people are going around with two fathers or mothers, the structure of society is threatendd. This is an issue which UK law has struggled with - traditionally a child had no right to find out the identity of a sperm-donor father. Now the law has changed. Being a biological parent is seen as very significant, and not something that can be hidden from a child. In some cases, this does cause a lot of problems and uncertainty as to the level of responsibility, commitment and involvement that a biological parent should have.
Situation Ethics
It seems very clear that in some cases, when a couple are desperate to have a child, infertility treatments can fulfil the needs, wishes and hopes of many couples. This seems very much the most loving thing.
Is it the most pragmatic thing though? If IVF only works for every fourth or fifth couple, does the benefit for the minority outweigh the heartache for the unsuccesful couples?
Situation ethics does not give a clear answer. Situationsist would not be against destroying embryos in principle. The real consideration is whether IVF and other procedures are really in the best interests of the couples involed.
Virtue Ethics
Virtue Ethics is concerned with our character. As such, it doesn't at first seem relevant to talk about rights. However, one of Aristotle's cardinal virtues is justice. Virtue Ethicists might argue that access to infertility treatments must be fair. They might have concerns with cases where a woman can only have IVF if she "sells" some of her eggs.
Another cardinal virtue is wisdom. It could be argued that what we hope for most among the members of the HFEA is that as they consider each application for a license, as they decide about individual cases and whether to allow PGD, they act wisely.
The Family Man was an excellent series that focussed on one fertility doctor. With my A level students, we watched and tried hard to determine the ethics of the central character. At first, he seemed like a traditional utilitarian ("I just want to make people happy"). Then, maybe a preference utilitarian ("I just want to give people what they want"). It soon became clear that he was no sort of utilitarian at all, scoffing at the idea of being just a "bloody pragmatist". There was clearly a principle involved that was worth sacrificing all of his patients' happiness for (so maybe he was a rule utilitarian, one of my students suggested). One way or other, the programme focussed on this one man, and showed the effects of his wisdom, or lack of it. Maybe it could be used as a criticism of virtue theory - one man's character cannot be trusted to 'do the right thing', but it was equally clear that the 'right thing' didn't merely consist of getting the right outcomes.
Aristotle may have agreed that childless couples who are desperate to have babies have not reached eudaimonia. The difficult question is whether a child would bring them closer to eudaimonia, or whether they need to come to terms with their childlessness.
