Couples Ask: What?s Wrong With In-vitro Fertilization?

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — Catholic teaching has called in-vitro fertilization techniques immoral for decades. But most Catholics still haven’t heard the news.

California attorneys Anthony and Stephanie Epolite found out the hard way that in-vitro fertilization wasn’t all it’s cracked up to be. After years of marriage, and facing her 39th birthday still without a baby, Stephanie turned to a fertility clinic.

Two years and $25,000 later, the couple had nothing but frustration and embarrassment to show for the time spent on in-vitro fertilization (in-vitro fertilization).

"We were emotionally, financially and spiritually spent," Stephanie Epolite said. "The clinic did no diagnostic tests. They loaded me up with fertility medication and determined the right time for retrieval of my eggs."

But, after the retrieval and the mixing of the eggs with Anthony’s sperm in the laboratory, still no embryo developed. "In the end, they told me I just had old eggs," Stephanie said.

She wishes she had known at the beginning what she has since learned: The Catholic Church forbids fertility techniques that try to make babies outside of marital intercourse. "There is no education out there about the alternatives," she said, "so Catholics are flocking to the fertility clinics."

According to the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, infertility affects more than 6 million American women and their spouses, or about 10% of the reproductive-age population. About 5% of infertile couples use in-vitro fertilization.

As to how many Catholic couples are among them, figures are hard to come by. But many Catholics seem unaware of the immorality of the procedure.

"Anecdotally, from our consultation experience here, Catholics using reproductive technologies are generally unaware of the Church’s moral teaching in this area," said Dr. Peter Cataldo, director of research with the Boston-based National Catholic Bioethics Center. "They’re not hearing it from the pulpit or elsewhere."

In her teaching on human reproduction, the Church seeks to safeguard human dignity. God wants life "to be the result of an act of love by those committed to loving each other," philosophy professor Janet Smith has written. Anything that assists the conjugal act achieve its purpose of procreation is licit; anything that substitutes for it is not.

In No. 2377, the Catechism explains why the Church opposes methods that separate marital love-making from baby-making.

"They dissociate the sexual act from the procreative act. The act which brings the child into existence is no longer an act by which two persons give themselves to one another, but one that entrusts the life and identity of the embryo into the power of doctors and biologists and establishes the domination of technology over the origin and destiny of the human person. Such a relationship of domination is in itself contrary to the dignity and equality that must be common to parents and children. Under the moral aspect procreation is deprived of its proper perfection when it is not willed as the fruit of the conjugal act, that is to say, of the specific act of the spouses’ union."

In successful in-vitro fertilization, a human life comes into existence outside the conjugal act and outside the womb. Conception is the result of a technician’s manipulation of "reproductive materials." The process for the collection of sperm often necessitates masturbation, which is itself immoral.

Father Tadeusz Pacholczyk, director of education at the National Catholic Bioethics Center in Philadelphia, explained that the Church teaches that the procedure is immoral for several reasons. "It undermines the meaning of sex. It violates the exclusivity of the couple’s marriage covenant," Father Pacholczyk said. "It says that it is okay to manufacture life in a laboratory as if it were a commodity, when it should be the result of human love."

"There’s also the ancillary evil of freezing embryonic humans that are later abandoned or poured down the sink if they are not useful," he added.

In addition, Father Pacholczyk noted that babies created through in-vitro fertilization have an elevated risk of birth defects.

"Studies have shown a sixfold elevated risk for in-vitro fertilization children contracting an eye disease called retinal blastoma versus normally conceived babies," he said. "In-vitro fertilization is very unnatural. You’re extracting ova from the woman, culturing them and inspecting the developing embryo in a laboratory setting. They are in a completely unnatural environment for a very long time before they are put back into the womb.

"Commercial interests offer in-vitro fertilization as standard practice," Father Pacholczyk said. "The Catholic Church is the only voice opposed to it."

But there are morally acceptable alternatives to in-vitro fertilization, and Dr. Thomas Hilgers is trying to let more Catholic couples know that.

In response to Humanae Vitae, Pope Paul VI’s 1968 encyclical reaffirming the Church’s opposition to contraception, Hilgers devoted his life to the study of human reproduction, developing the Creighton Model System of Natural Family Planning and eventually opening the Pope Paul VI Institute for the Study of Human Reproduction.

In 1991, Hilgers coined the term NaProTechnology (Natural Procreative Technology), a reproductive and gynecologic medical science that seeks to evaluate and treat a host of women’s health problems without the use of contraception, sterilization, abortion or artificial reproductive technologies, thereby making it consistent with Church teachings.

NaProTechnology first identifies the causes of infertility and then seeks to treat them. That’s not always the case at fertility clinics.

"The aim of most fertility clinics is to skip over the abnormality to try to get women pregnant," Hilgers said. "Yet when you skip over the causes, you end up dealing with them one way or another.

"It’s ludicrous to promote in-vitro fertilization as the help for the vast majority of 6.62 million with impaired fertility," he said. "When you listen to the national news and morning television shows, you think that in-vitro fertilization is the only thing available to infertile couples, yet less than 0.5% of infertile couples in the U.S. are helped by in-vitro fertilization each year."

Catholic theologians and ethicists would agree that NaProTechnology is morally acceptable, Cataldo said.

Cataldo pointed out that "certain drug therapies and egg-stimulating medications at doses that don’t have disproportionate risks for the children engendered or for the mother" also are acceptable. But other technologies, such as intrauterine insemination (IUI) and gamete intrafallopian transfer (GIFT) fall into a "gray area."

"Some moral theologians and ethicists see these techniques as assisting the conjugal act. Others see it as replacing it," he said. "Until such time as the Vatican speaks, Catholics contemplating the use of IUI or GIFT should inform themselves of both sides of the moral and theological argument and then make a decision in good conscience."

Regardless of the artificial method chosen, the cost of such techniques remains high and the success rates low. According to the 2001 Assisted Reproductive Technology Success Rates report compiled by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, a survey of 384 fertility clinics showed a clinical pregnancy success rate of 32%.

In a 1990 article published in Social Justice Review, then-associate director of the U.S. Catholic bishops’ Pro-Life Secretariat Richard Doerflinger noted that a survey of in-vitro fertilization clinics discovered that half of the clinics had never had a live birth after being in business at least three years, collectively treating more than 600 women and collecting $2.5 million for their services.

"Those with the extraordinary emotions that engulf infertile couples are extremely vulnerable," Hilgers said. "They are easy prey."

Not only do natural and morally acceptable alternatives such as NaProTechnology cost far less, but they also are more successful. The Pope Paul VI Institute boasts success rates ranging from 38% to 80%, depending upon the condition being treated.

Following the Epolites’ experience with in-vitro fertilization, Stephanie learned about the Pope Paul VI Institute from a Natural Family Planning counselor. In the fall of 2000, the couple applied to the institute, gathered charts they had kept that outlined vital signs related to fertility, and underwent diagnostic testing.

As it turned out, both had reproductive issues that their previous fertility clinic had never diagnosed. Anthony’s sperm count was low, and Stephanie suffered from endometriosis and blocked fallopian tubes.

Six months later, following treatment of their conditions at the Pope Paul VI Institute and at the age of 42, Stephanie conceived naturally. Their daughter, Claire Marie, was born Oct. 31, 2002.

"At the Pope Paul VI Institute, we saw compassion, concern, help and love," Stephanie said. "They provided individualized treatment, versus the empty feeling that we felt from the fertility clinic. Whereas the fertility clinic bypasses all the laws of nature, the Pope Paul VI Institute works with the laws of nature."

Shooting someone dead is clearly not a "good act", but it's trivially easy to describe circumstances (self-defense) under which it is ethically appropriate to do so.

Murder is not a good kind of act. Hence, murder is never justified. But a good kind of act can have evil results. An act of self-defense is a good kind of act, all other things being equal. Therefore, the death or injury of an attacker, as a result of an act of self-defense, is not necessarily unethical. If the act goes beyond what is necessary for self-defense, however, then it is no longer an act of self-defense.

-A8

By fundamentalist you mean obeying the creator of the universe?

I think several posts in this thread have outlined the reasons for condemning IVF and many so-called fertility tenements. None of them have anything to do with equating a sperm with a person.

Medical intervention is not bad in all cases. What the definition of medical intervention is is the key issue here. Perhaps Hitler would call experimenting on handicapped people and prisoners good medical intervention. It is not.

Medicine is to assist in eliminating disease through moral means. It is not to commit intrinsically evil acts even if some good may come of it.

Two years and $25,000 later, the couple had nothing but frustration and embarrassment to show for the time spent on in-vitro fertilization (in-vitro fertilization).

About a year and $25,000 is all my wife and I will need to spend in order to come home with a cute little Russian orphan boy.

I'm quite relieved that we finally got over the "our own genes" hurdle to adoption.

I can never quite figure out why couples feel the need to have "their own" baby in circumstances like the Epolites when there are so many children in need of adoption.

Domestically, undoubtedly due in part to the prevalence of abortion, there are an average of 3.5 adoptive families for every adoptable child according to Census figures.

This is one of the reasons that my wife and I are adopting from Russia - theres thousands of children over there languishing in orphanages, because adoption is still not terribly socially accepted as I understand it.

I can never quite figure out why couples feel the need to have "their own" baby in circumstances like the Epolites when there are so many children in need of adoption.

Building a family is one of the most personal and emotional undertakings that a couple can undergo, and that is magnified when you're faced with infertility.

We wind up going through the five stages of grief, essentially grieving the loss of the blood descendants we'll never have. It's not quite the same thing as losing a child you already had, but it's a very difficult and painful thing to accept even so. We still had dreams and hopes for the future of our biological children, even if they don't exist yet.

The couple in this article spent $25,000 and two years in Stage 1 - Denial. It's certainly a blessing that they were ultimately able to concieve, but my wife and I had to work through the rest of the stages of grieving when we got through Stage 1 and decided that fertility treatments and the risks to her health were obstacles we no longer wanted to try to overcome. We've been married for 11 years now.

You are going to have to sit my middle child down and explain that to him when he's 18.

He's the result of in-vitro using a donor egg.

Explain to me how bringing life into the world lessens the value of it.

There is one issue here that is legitimate for discussion: what happens to the other frozen embryos.

There is another not addressed: The morons that implant 6 embryos, have five take, and then 'selectively reduce' to 2 embryos.

The ends do not justify the means, but in-vitro fertilization is as much an act of love as intercourse, as long as the children are sought after in some fashion other than handbag accessories.

Every single child is a gift from God. I guarantee you that the day will come when you will wonder how your family could have existed without your child who is coming to you from Russia.

Our son from Viet Nam (my wife and I are caucasian)was studying genetics way back when he was in grade school. He was given a science project about eye color, ear lobes, rolled tongues, etc. I was helping him and told him his teacher must be mistaken, because neither Mom nor I had detached ear lobes or brown eyes, there must be some sort of recessive genes for these things.

And then there's the one where my wife had very vivid "memories" of her trip to the hospital to give birth to another child we didn't even meet until she was four.

Maybe we've been blessed with the peace that it doesn't matter where a child comes from because God's given us children both ways. I promise the emotions you feel (both good and bad) are no different.

Explain to me how bringing life into the world lessens the value of it.

It's the means that lessen the value of it, not the end result (the child). Nobody is blaming the children that come about for the perilousness posed by in-vitro. When I said 'lessen the value' I meant that human life will be devalued in the same way you see it happening today: let's choose our baby's sex; let's take DNA tests of the fetus and abort it if it is not 'perfect'; let's whip up 10 embryos in a lab and, if one takes, let's flush the rest or harvest their DNA. In-vitro, like it or not, means that human beings are no longer ends in themselves - they are means to "parenthood", and procreation is taken out of the sacrament and into the lab.

You might say "In-vitro doesn't lead to that - bad decisions do." Well, that's true, but so does sex outside of marriage. And to the Catholic Church and its understanding of natural law, that's what in-vitro is. And that's where all its abuses come from - good intentions wrapped up in commodifying technology run by people who don't value life as an end in itself and sold to people who think they know themselves better than God does.

I don't mean to come down hard but that's my understanding of why the Church thinks in-vitro is wrong. For me, it's the pandora's box that's most obviously troubling - science's unfailing pursuit to do whatever it can if it can. They will do whatever they can with human DNA, too, and they will take reproduction outside of the sacramental confines of marriage to do it, too, it goes without saying.

I evil (the devil) can turn good intentions into harmful results and God can turn bad intentions into good things. We'll see what He makes of this.

You automatically lose the debate by invoking Hitler. As if you can draw some perverted moral equivalency between Hitler and IVF.

You sound just like the "if God had wanted us to fly he'd have given us wings" crowd.

The difference between the factions here is that some of us believe God loves us unconditionaly and some of us are afraid of God.

I believe the former is true and I also believe the greatest Mortal sin is to interpret the bible to suit ones ends.

I made an analogy, I did not invoke Hitler. You can't self define the greatest sin, friend, that makes you god. You are interpreting the bible, not I. I am accepting what God has ordained by His Church which speaks infallibly on such issues. You are fallible and very wrong in this case. God does love us unconditionally. That does not mean we are to presume upon His mercy. One can't commit grave sin after grave sin and call it not a sin. That is presumption. We all can be blinded to the truth if we immerse ourselves in grave sin.

So, how then do you and the church feel about adoption?

I have an adopted girl too.

If she was conceived out of wedlock, and I adopt her, is this not violating the same standards you put forward, that we adopted her not for the beauty and miracle of creating a human being, but for the sake of parenthood, and that procreation has been taken out of the sacrament.

You weren't coming down hard by the way, you are just laying out your argument.

I fully agree that science pursues things and does them without questioning whether they should. I'm not sure about whether scientists are the ones best suited to debating the merits of their pursuits.

The A-bomb is the obvious example, right? Did the A-bomb save more lives than it took? So far, maybe.

That'll change if China decides to invade Taiwan probably.

Back on point, we are God's creatures, and we are curious, and we are laden with the talents God gave us.

Oppenheimer brought us both the bomb and nuclear power.

As you say, people kill people, guns don't kill people.

I say that if you restrict scientists from discovery that is achieved in accordance with the laws of God and man, it is up to us to provide the discipline to properly use these discoveries afterward.

Stem-cell research on aborted fetus' - bad
Stem-cell research on adult cells and ambilical cord blood, no problem.

Research on the effects of hypothermia - good.
Nazi's using Jews in those experiments - bad.

The church's deal with Galileo gave us some insight on what would happen if we put the church in charge of what we ought to be studying.

I'm all for the church telling us HOW we ought to be studying, but not what.

Thank you for your kind thoughts.

I agree that we do not have the right to correct any medical condition -- cancer or infertility -- by immoral means. The question here is whether IVF is immoral. In my view, creating then abandoning embryos would be immoral -- so we agree on that. I am not convinced, though, that IVF itself is immoral.

An interesting answer to my question since I have never condemned IVF. Basically, if I understand you, the answer you have given me is "because I can." What if your IVF kid needs a transplant. According to your logic, you can just clone him and use the other child for spare body parts, because you can because we "have such marvelous medical techniques to preserve life." Of course, that is as ridiculous as you stating that I am questioning you and your wifes' commitment.
What I am understanding about your non-answer is that your overwhelming desire for IVF comes into the realm of being able to say you possess a child of your very own--who has your eyes, your wifes' smile, etc. If that is the case, let me remind you that ALL children are on "loan", so to speak, as my sister was reminded when her daughter died at a young age.
That being said, let me wish you and your wife the very best and much happiness with your new addition.

"It's me again. Loved your outing of my last message, what a clever way to respond. My private message was to give you some information that might make you reconsider your low opinion of me. Didn't work, you just kept calling me childless. What is it about the idea of insulting me that warms your heart? Can't figure that out? "

I thought I asked you politely NOT to bother me privately with your ridiculous gibberish. DO you have a problem understanding and complying with an English request?

I continue to have a "low opinion" of you. I didn't call you "childless". I called you CHILDISH! It troubles my heart to see someone as CHILDISH as you raising children. God help your kids.

"Your comments regarding this topic were not offered in a considerate manner, but rather in a manner that reflects poorly on you. That's what started this dialogue. If you want to trash people hiding behind your little screen name, don't expect everyone to just roll over."

Your replies to me in private are NOT wanted and again I ask STOP SENDING ME THESE sophomoric replies in private. It only highlights how immature you are. You should talk about "trashing people" ... you hide in private and try to trash me. I have my debates in the OPEN. I don't hide and harass people in privately. Just like you, usafsk, I don't use my real name either so your hypocritical point is (?). Don't answer, I am NOT the least bit interested in hearing from you in PRIVATE or in public on this topic.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.