Advances in assisted reproductive technologies (ART) have made it possible for many more people to have children than a generation ago. Clinics and policymakers, however, do not treat ART as purely a medical service divorced from the future child’s welfare. Assessments of prospective parents’ ability to raise a child—sometimes called “welfare of the child” or “parenting capacity” considerations—have both ethical and practical effects on who receives treatment, how services are funded, and where people seek care. Here we will examine how judgments about the ability to provide parental care influence access to fertility services, with attention to regional legal frameworks, income and socioeconomic status, age, health and medical history, and the practical tensions clinics face when balancing reproductive autonomy with child welfare.
Clinical and ethical foundations
Professional bodies and national regulators generally accept that welfare considerations are part of responsible fertility practice, though they frame and apply that principle differently. In the United States the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) has advised clinicians that the ability to provide parental care is a legitimate ethical concern that can, in limited and well-reasoned circumstances, justify withholding treatment. The guidance stresses careful, individualized assessment rather than broad moralizing or discrimination.
In the UK the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) requires clinics to consider the welfare of any child who might be born as a result of treatment; welfare assessments are embedded in clinic practice and, when there are clear risks of significant harm to a child, clinics are expected to refuse treatment. That regulatory duty creates a formal gatekeeping role for clinics which is uncommon elsewhere.
These high-level statements leave much room for interpretation. In practice clinics must translate ethical standards into workable policies: what counts as an unacceptable risk; how to weigh poverty against parental love and support networks; whether older parenthood is a disqualifier; and how to respond to histories of substance misuse, severe mental illness, or criminal behaviour. The answers vary widely and drive the patterns of access explored below.
Regional factors: law, regulation and public funding
Where you live strongly determines whether and how parenting capacity is considered.
United Kingdom: The HFEA requirement to assess welfare of the child makes parenting assessments routine in fertility clinics. Local NHS commissioning policies also add eligibility conditions for funded IVF—age caps, requirement that at least one partner has no living children, BMI and smoking rules—and those criteria differ by commissioning area. The combined effect is both a legal basis for welfare screening and a patchwork of local eligibility that shapes access.
United States: Regulation is mostly at the clinic and medical-association level rather than centralized statutory rules. ASRM guidance influences practice but does not create hard regulatory thresholds. Public funding for ART is minimal in most U.S. states, so access is strongly market-driven and clinics adopt varied screening approaches—some formalize psychosocial assessments; others limit evaluations to medical suitability.
Europe and elsewhere: Countries range from very permissive (Denmark, where donor systems and clinic policies are liberal, attracting cross-border patients) to restrictive (nations that limit access to married heterosexual couples or impose strict age limits). Public funding frameworks (e.g., Denmark, parts of Scandinavia vs. France’s evolving policies or private-heavy systems) create different incentives: where public programs exist, regulators are more likely to impose welfare and eligibility rules; where services are privately purchased, socioeconomic barriers dominate.
Regulatory differences also create fertility tourism: patients denied access or facing restrictive eligibility at home may travel to jurisdictions with fewer welfare screens or different eligibility rules. That movement redistributes ethical questions—who bears responsibility for ongoing child welfare when treatment occurs abroad?—and can exacerbate inequities between those who can travel and those who cannot.
Income and socioeconomic status
Socioeconomic factors are among the strongest predictors of who obtains ART and how clinics treat welfare concerns.
Affordability and funding: Where ART is expensive and largely private, income becomes the primary access barrier. People with higher incomes can not only pay for procedures but also choose clinics with more permissive psychosocial screening or opt for treatment abroad. In contrast, in public systems where ART is funded, means-testing and eligibility criteria (e.g., no prior children, residency requirements) often shape access in complex ways. Studies consistently show socioeconomic disparities in ART usage even where some public funding exists.
Poverty and welfare considerations: Poverty itself is not a reliable indicator of child maltreatment risk, but clinics and funders sometimes treat low income as a marker of instability. In some jurisdictions, scarcity of public resources leads policymakers to prioritize applicants who appear most likely to achieve positive outcomes (e.g., stable household, employment). This introduces moral tension: denying treatment because of poverty risks punishing social inequality rather than protecting children—and may disproportionately affect racialized or marginalized groups. Evidence suggests that welfare-based gatekeeping can perpetuate social inequities unless coupled with social supports and clear, narrowly tailored criteria.
Age factors: parental age, fertility potential and welfare concerns
Age affects both medical suitability for ART and concerns about future caregiving.
Medical and outcome considerations: Female reproductive aging reduces success rates and raises pregnancy risks; paternal age introduces genetic considerations. Clinically, age has an objective role in counseling and in some publicly funded programs where age cutoffs determine eligibility. These clinical realities justify some age-sensitive policies, but they do not automatically translate into blanket disqualification.
Parental care horizon: Regulators and clinicians sometimes justify age limits on the basis that prospective parents may die or become incapacitated while children are young. The ethical counterargument stresses reproductive autonomy: chronological age predicts variability across individuals, and age alone is a blunt instrument for assessing parenting capacity. Best practice recommends individualized risk assessment (medical, social support, estate planning) rather than rigid age exclusion. Professional guidance increasingly emphasizes balancing outcome probabilities with fair access.
Health and medical history
Physical health, mental health, substance use, and past social history are central to welfare assessments.
Physical health and pregnancy risk: Chronic medical conditions (cardiac disease, uncontrolled diabetes, severe pulmonary disease) can make pregnancy dangerous. Clinics are ethically and medically obligated to counsel about risks and may decline treatment when pregnancy would pose serious maternal risk. Reproductive autonomy interacts with non-maleficence: when treatment is likely to cause significant harm to the patient, many programs will decline. ASRM and other bodies provide frameworks for these judgments.
Mental health and substance use: A history of severe, untreated mental illness or active substance misuse raises concerns about capacity to parent safely. However, clinicians are typically advised to distinguish between treatable or remitted conditions and active, uncontrolled risk. Offering support and treatment (e.g., addiction services, psychiatric stabilization) and reassessing can be more just than outright refusal. Blanket exclusions based on diagnosis are discouraged; the focus should be on current functioning and supports.
Criminal history and child protection records: Serious histories—e.g., convictions for violence against children—are legitimate grounds for concern. Regulatory frameworks like the HFEA permit refusal when there is reasonable belief that a child would be at risk of significant harm. Clinics must balance privacy, evidence standards, and fairness when investigating such histories. Clear thresholds, pathways for review, and opportunities to provide mitigating evidence (rehabilitation, changed circumstances) help make these decisions less arbitrary.
Practical clinic responses and variability
Because the criteria are complex and locally variable, clinics deploy a range of operational responses:
Routine psychosocial screening: Many clinics include baseline psychosocial questionnaires and brief assessments to flag potential concerns; these can be triaged to social workers or psychologists for fuller evaluation. Clear, transparent forms reduce the sense of hidden gatekeeping.
Referral to social supports: Where social determinants (housing instability, poverty, lack of parenting skills) are the main concerns, some programs link prospective parents with social services rather than refuse treatment outright. This cooperative model recognizes that improving parental capacity can be a route to safe childbearing.
Hard refusal with appeal mechanisms: In jurisdictions with legal mandates (e.g., HFEA), clinics may refuse and document reasons; good practice includes an appeal or review mechanism and clear communication about the reasons and any remedial steps a patient might take.
Policy implications and recommendations
The intersection of child welfare and reproductive services raises difficult moral questions. Several practical recommendations can reduce arbitrariness and inequity:
Explicit, evidence-based criteria: Regulators and clinics should publish clear, narrowly tailored standards that specify what constitutes an unacceptable risk to a child and how assessments are carried out. This reduces discretion and perceived bias.
Individualized assessments with pathways to remedy: Rather than blanket exclusions (e.g., by age or poverty), clinics should offer individualized evaluation and, where appropriate, link patients to services (mental health care, addiction treatment, housing supports) that address modifiable risks.
Equity safeguards: Because socioeconomic status is a major determinant of access, public funding and program design should seek to reduce disparities—either by expanding funding or by ensuring that welfare assessments do not become proxies for social disadvantage.
Transparency and appeal: Patients should receive written reasons for refusals and have access to timely review. Transparency builds trust and allows patients to remedy specific concerns.
Cross-border coordination: For patients who travel for treatment to avoid restrictive regimes, better international cooperation on follow-up care and child protection standards would reduce ethical and practical harms.
Conclusion
The ability to provide parental care legitimately factors into the responsible provision of fertility services, but how it is assessed and applied varies widely by jurisdiction, clinic practices, and the availability of public funding. Age, health, medical history, and socioeconomic context all influence both the clinical suitability for treatment and ethical judgments about future child welfare. The dominant ethical challenge is to protect children without entrenching social inequities or arrogating moral judgments that exclude deserving parents. Clear, evidence-based policies, individualized assessments, support pathways for modifiable risks, and transparency are the practical tools that can reconcile reproductive autonomy with child protection in a fairer and more humane way.
Modern Fertility Law has made this content available to the general public for informational purposes only. The information on this site is not intended to convey legal opinions or legal advice.