Are companies ethically justified in offering nonmedical egg freezing as an employee benefit?
All over the world, many companies are including oocyte cryopreservation for nonmedical reasons, also popularly known as nonmedical egg freezing (NMEF), within their employee benefits packages. However, it is important to ask whether companies are ethically justified in offering NMEF as a benefit fo...
| Authors: | ; |
|---|---|
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Interlibrary Loan: | Interlibrary Loan for the Fachinformationsdienste (Specialized Information Services in Germany) |
| Published: |
2025
|
| In: |
Bioethics
Year: 2025, Volume: 39, Issue: 1, Pages: 117-126 |
| IxTheo Classification: | NCF Sexual ethics NCH Medical ethics NCJ Ethics of science |
| Further subjects: | B
reproductive autonomy
B workplace inequality B motherhood conflict / work B fiduciary responsibilities B assisted reproductive technologies |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (kostenfrei) Volltext (kostenfrei) |
| Summary: | All over the world, many companies are including oocyte cryopreservation for nonmedical reasons, also popularly known as nonmedical egg freezing (NMEF), within their employee benefits packages. However, it is important to ask whether companies are ethically justified in offering NMEF as a benefit for their employees. The inclusion of NMEF within companies' employee benefits packages could be ethically justified in two ways. On the one hand, company-sponsored NMEF can serve as a strategy to mitigate or eliminate gender inequalities in the workplace, such as female underrepresentation in positions of authority and leadership and the so-called work/motherhood conflict. On the other hand, company-sponsored NMEF can be a means to expand women's reproductive autonomy by making egg freezing accessible to those women who are not able to afford it otherwise. This article calls into question these ethical justifications. We argue that by offering NMEF as an employee benefit, companies maintain current workplace inequalities and impose an option for women with multiple risks and externalities. Therefore, companies' offering of NMEF benefits cannot be ethically justified. Furthermore, we argue that companies that offer NMEF benefits incur fiduciary responsibilities related to the physiological, emotional, psychological, and financial costs of the use of company-sponsored NMEF. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1467-8519 |
| Contains: | Enthalten in: Bioethics
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1111/bioe.13347 |
