Should infertility treatments for fertile gay or single women be covered?
Should women be denied coverage for infertility treatments if they’re fertile but have no partner to mate with because they’re single or gay? A proposal to do just that was published in a well-respected medical journal, pitched by a doctoral student in theological ethics at Boston College.
Cristina Richie, author of the provocative paper published Thursday in the Journal of Medical Ethics, told me she has no religious objections to infertility treatments such as artificial insemination or in vitro fertilization. Her motivation is to start what she calls a “green bioethics movement” to reduce the carbon footprint caused by elective medical procedures.
“Hormones used in these treatments have environmental side effects when they get into the water supply and the retrieval of eggs and storage of embryos is a carbon intensive procedure,” Richie said. “Children conceived from these procedures also leave a carbon legacy.”
Thus, she reasoned, mandated insurance coverage for infertility treatments — as in Massachusetts — should not apply to fertile women. Excluding them from this coverage might encourage them to adopt instead.
So does this idea pass muster with medical ethicists?
Not by a long shot, said Arthur Caplan, head of the division of bioethics at New York University Langone Medical Center in New York. “There’s an argument to be made that if you’re single or gay, it kind of renders you infertile due to practical circumstances, even if not for biological reasons.”
Dr. Dominic Wilkinson, associate editor of the journal that published Richie’s paper, also weighed in: “Climate change is important, but carbon caps should be applied equally and fairly. They should not be used to discriminate against those who are single or gay.”