Abstract
Study question
What are the moral perceptions and views of women considering social egg freezing?
Summary answer
Participants did not perceive egg freezing as a morally problematic solution to societal problems but addressed concerns about relationship formation and wanted more social efforts.
What is known already
Central to the social egg freezing debate is the individualisation argument which underlines the idea that it is morally problematic to use individual medical-technological solutions, such as egg freezing, to solve the societal challenges women face, for instance in the current labour market. It has been said that, instead of quick medical-technical solutions that target individual women’s bodies, we should focus on substantive changes that target the androcentric work culture. This theme relates to feminist concerns about unnecessary medicalisation geared towards women. Furthermore, there is a call for more empirical studies to back up this central normative claim.
Study design, size, duration
Seventeen participants were recruited by psychologists working in two Belgian centres for reproductive medicine which offer egg freezing for social reasons. In addition, four participants were recruited through via social networks. Interviews took place between February 2019 and November 2020 at a location of the participants’ preference or through online video connections.
Participants/materials, setting, methods
At the beginning of the interview, open questions were asked to invite the participants to speak about social egg freezing in their own words. In the second part of the interview, we used four cards with controversial statements based on a study of the bioethics literature, to encourage the participants to reflect about ethical concerns. In this part, we engaged in Socratic dialogue. For the analysis, thematic analysis was used combined with interdisciplinary collaborative auditing.
Main results and the role of chance
This is the first study providing empirical evidence about (potential) egg freezers’ moral reasoning about individualisation arguments. Most participants in our study could make sense of the individualisation argument but emphasised another societal challenge rather than the current labour market. They highlighted ‘the lack of a partner relationship’ as driving their motivation for this procedure. The shortage of eligible partners has been well defined in social science scholarship about social egg freezing but this element has rarely been articulated in the premises of individualisation arguments. This topic of relationships is challenging to analyse from a normative perspective because it was experienced as much more personal and intimate by the women in our study than for instance measures to realise more fair labour conditions, such as improved access to childcare. Some participants believed egg freezing resulted from individual problems and found the individualisation argument not applicable to their own situation. Furthermore, no participant found the individualisation argument legitimate to depict social freezing as morally problematic. Nonetheless, the participants showed a sense of sympathy with women who lack access to egg freezing and were in favour of societal solutions in several public domains.
Limitations, reasons for caution
Given that we report on a small-scale qualitative study of possible social egg freezers at two Belgian fertility clinics, and that our study foregrounds the voices of mostly white higher educated women who were able to afford this technology, our results cannot be generalised to all social egg freezers.
Wider implications of the findings
Our findings can contribute to a better understanding of previously identified normative arguments (e.g., individualisation and unnecessary medicalisation). There is a definite need to further analyse the complex interplay between respecting autonomous choices and evaluating contextual factors in this debate and other practices where similar individualisation arguments are used.
Trial registration number
Not applicable
