1. Hearings before the Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight of the Committee on Science and Technology,House of Representative, August 8–9, 1984, No. 142 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. GovernmentPrinting Office, 1985). Hereafter referred to as Hearings.
2. Fertility and Sterility, 40 (December 1983): 724–727. His warning applies mutatis mutandis to patient loss regardless of its source.
3. Some of these changes were suggested to me by a recent paper read by Juliet Wikler at the American Society of Law and Medicine Conference in October 1984 (unpublished).
4. Peter Singer (with Deane Wells), The Reproductive Revolution: New Ways of Making Babies (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1984). Singer believes that the reason we object to the kind of dystopian society Huxley describes has to do principally with its political and moral ideals rather than its technical capacities (p. 143). Singer’s remarks suggest that he sees a given technology as neutral to the sorts of value structures it might support.
5. For pertinent details, see George J. Annas, “The Baby Broker Boom,” Hastings Center Reports,16 (June 1986): 30–31.