The Commodification of Gametes: Why Banning Untrammeled Commercialization Matters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This chapter discusses why a prohibition on the commercial sale of gametes is both desirable as well as reconcilable with fundamental rights and freedoms. The chapter takes as a starting point a Canadian Supreme Court decision which invalidated some provisions of the Canadian Assisted Human Reproduction Act, but left in place provisions that allow the government to introduce regulations for the reimbursement of gamete donors and surrogates. Building on Margaret Jane Radin’s seminal work on Contested Commodities, the author suggests that criminal sanctions prohibiting the commercialization of gametes are legitimate and aim at confirming a richer concept of individual autonomy and at protecting human dignity. The author further discusses why, regardless of changes in how we value assisted human reproduction itself, reproductive goods should continue to be awarded special status outside of the commercial market. To justify the claim for a prohibitory approach, the author emphasizes in particular the inherently relational nature of reproductive goods, the profound link to identity and personhood, and equity concerns related to market-driven selection of essential human traits. The author further argues that the criminal prohibition of market-oriented sale can be reconciled with an enabling state-regulated reimbursement scheme. The chapter also engages with the arguments that restricting commercial sale could violate fundamental rights and freedoms, particularly the right to security of the person and equality rights. The chapter discusses why these arguments ignore the significant more long-term impact of untrammelled commercialization on human personhood and on widely shared societal values.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.053 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".