Posted on 06/13/2009 7:20:36 PM PDT by cmj328
When I give talks on stem cell research or in in vitro fertilization, people invariably ask, “What should be done with all the frozen embryos?” It is usually asked with a sense of urgency, even desperation, as they reflect on the fate of the hundreds of thousands of human embryos cryopreserved in liquid nitrogen at fertility clinics. The simple answer is that ethically there is very little we can do with the frozen embryos except to keep them frozen for the foreseeable future. No other morally acceptable options seem to exist.
The question of what to do with the frozen embryos, I sometimes remind my audiences, is not in fact the most pressing question we face. A much more urgent issue is how to stop the relentless manufacturing and freezing of new embryos which is occurring each day, with clockwork-like regularity, in every major city in the United States.
The infertility industry has become an embryo mass-production line with virtually no legal oversight or national regulation. Catering to strong parental desires, it is a multibillion dollar business aptly described as the “wild west of infertility.’’ To start to bring this into check, strong laws and regulations like those found in Germany and Italy are urgently needed. In those countries, no more than three embryos may be produced for each infertility treatment, and all three must be implanted into their mother. Extra embryos may not be produced or frozen; as a result, there are essentially no frozen embryos stored in German and Italian fertility clinics.
For those embryos that do end up abandoned in liquid nitrogen, the question often arises: would it be morally permissible to give them up for “embryo adoption,” whereby other couples could implant, gestate and raise them as if they were their own children?
There is ongoing debate among reputable Catholic theologians about this matter, and technically it remains an open question. A recent Vatican document called Dignitas Personae expressed serious moral reservations about the approach, without, however, explicitly condemning it as immoral. But we can easily see reasons why the promotion of embryo adoption would be imprudent. If embryo adoption were to become standard practice in the current, largely unregulated climate of the fertility industry, this could actually stimulate the production of yet more embryos; IVF clinic operators would be able to placate themselves by saying, “We really don’t need to worry about producing extra embryos, because there will always be somebody willing to adopt any that are left over.” It could offer the clinics an excuse to continue and even expand their current immoral practices.
Some have suggested that a morally acceptable solution to the frozen embryo problem might come through applying the principle that “extraordinary” means do not have to be undertaken to prolong human life. They argue that to sustain an embryo’s life in a cryogenic state is to use extraordinary means and this is not required.
In fact, however, the decision to continue cryopreserving an embryo in liquid nitrogen is probably not an instance of using extraordinary means, since the burden and costs involved in taking care of embryonic children in this way are actually minimal. When we have children, we have a duty to clothe, feed, care for, and educate them, all of which costs plenty of money. When our children are frozen, we don’t needt to clothe, feed, or educate them; our care for them can only be expressed by paying the bill each month to replenish the liquid nitrogen in their storage tanks. This way of caring for our children is obviously unusual, but it does not seem morally extraordinary in terms of achieving the desired end of safeguarding their physical integrity.
In my opinion, parents have an obligation to care for their children in this way until some other option becomes available in the future (maybe a sophisticated “embryo incubator” or “artificial womb” of some kind), or until there is a reasonable certainty that they have died on their own from decay or “freezer burn,” which may occur whenever frozen embryos are stored for extended periods. Perhaps after a few hundred years, all the stored embryos would have died on their own, and they could finally be thawed and given a decent burial. This approach would not involve us in the direct moral agency of ending their lives by withdrawing their life-sustaining liquid nitrogen.
Frozen embryos, clearly, can never be donated to science. Such a decision would amount to handing over not cadavers, but living human beings, for dismemberment at the hands of stem cell researchers. This would always be a radical failure in the parents’ duty to protect and care for their offspring.
These considerations indicate the difficulty of answering the question about the disposition of frozen human embryos. We are reminded how sinful choices have consequences, and how the original decision to violate the moral law by doing IVF invariably has grievous repercussions, including the kinds of quandaries considered here, for which no moral resolution is apparent.
Rev. Tadeusz Pacholczyk, Ph.D. earned his doctorate in neuroscience from Yale and did post-doctoral work at Harvard. He is a priest of the diocese of Fall River, and serves as the Director of Education at The National Catholic Bioethics Center in Philadelphia. See www.ncbcenter.org
I’ve no idea how many of them there are, but don’t tell octomom about them...
It is something of a conundrum, isn't it. On one hand, there seems to be no set “expiration date” on an embryo in nitrogen, though it is reasonable to expect that they can't stay frozen eternally without deteriorating. Conversely, the rate of successful implant is something on the order of 10-15% if the literature is to be believed. Talk about child abuse!
Here is the problem. If there is no set limit on how long they can stay frozen and retain viability, but there is an 85-90% chance of “death” in the implantation process, then they would be far safer to remain frozen if preservation of their “lives” is of paramount importance.
I offered the last paragraph somewhat in jest, but it should be a real concern if a frozen embryo is a life as many believe. If they are safe while they're frozen, do we have the right to subject them to a strong probability of death by attempting an implant? Remember, 9 out of 10 will be “killed” in the process of implantation.Ta
I guess the acceptance of the frozen embryo as being a human, ie. a life, a soul and all that goes with it, leaves one in a position of rejecting actually implanting them unless you can guarantee that they would be just as safe either way. Currently, it would seem that they would be safer remaining frozen if their viability is actually unlimited (which I obviously doubt).
No easy answers on this one, except to note that technology, ethics and theology may have painted us into a corner. If we are really concerned about the safety of the embryo, we should not even attempt an implant, since it would subject the life to a danger that it wouldn't have by remaining frozen.
Personally, I think their little souls get put back on
God's shelf to be used again later (but that's just a hope of mine rather than certain knowledge). You can tell I don't have nearly enough faith to be a doctor (just being honest).
It’s not dead yet so use it.
Indeed. But by using it, we kill it 80% of the time.
Maybe, we can say that God kills it, but we’ve exercised our own free will by initiating the implantation procees of a life (albeit a very small one). It leaves me less and less certain of what is a proper path, the more the issue is contemplated (but I’m not terribly bright in such matters). I ‘spect God’s got it all figured out, but I don’t.
Sick $hit. Where are the decades old benefits from this scum?
Please portray this nicer.
I think the intellectual debate just broke down. :-)
The article mentions this:
http://www.nightlight.org/adoption-services/snowflakes-embryo/
Snowflake babies.
If a person has a problem with giving one up for adoption, it seems like this type of fertility treatment would not be a good option. It would be wise to think everything through before starting a treatment like this, that creates the extra embryos.
Let the innocent little ones live.
Article IV is my only defense. I am on your side.
As indecisive as I am on this problem, I appreciate the support. :-)
First, donate them!!! There are so many couples dying to become recipients to them and hopefully be successful and have babies from them!!
Next, we need to wait a little longer for a new noninvasive test which will determine the chromosomal ability of each frozen embryo to become a baby. MOST, certainly WELL over 50% of frozen embryos stored today cannot ever become babies, nor even second trimester fetuses. Most are chromosomally aneuploid, as are most embryos period, even the ones formed naturally after sex in the mother's womb. In a young, healthy woman, only about 40% of her eggs are normal. Sperm doesn't matter much as bad sperm don't make the cut by nature.
It would be essential to know which embryos are potential little humans, and which by their chromosomes would never implant or make it past 5 or 6 weeks of growth. Most embryos are in this category.
Please note that I am not asking for testing for conditions like Downs. I am asking for testing that shows which embryos will even make it to fetus stage.
Please see my #13. It solves this dilemma.
It is not in the implanting where the problem lies for each embryo’s chances, but in the egg from the woman instead. Rarely it’s a problem with the uterine lining or immune issues, but by far the most common thing to go wrong is in the egg’s chromosomes.
If we can test at day 5 and either refreeze or get the results fast enough to allow for transfer that same day, we will know which embryos have a chance.
My wife and I adopted our son as a frozen embryo. We are practicing Catholics and are faithful to the churches teachings. Just a few things I’ve gleaned through prayer and reflection. I hate the creation of embryo’s. I abhor how our child was created. This child is not genetically ours in any way. It was irresponsible of the “creating parties.” Our baby was sitting on a shelf for years.
I believe the argument, “adopting them will encourage the creation of more or will give tacit support” is weak. Catholics recognize that ending an ectopic pregnancy is acceptable by removing the “bad” section of the fallopian tube. We don’t wring our hands and worry, “does this encourage abortions for medical reasons.” We do the right thing and call a spade a spade, and explain the differences. e.g. Principle of Double Effect.
There’s a key fault in the surrogacy argument - motive. We are taking this child as our own, not raising the child for re-sale purposes. Surrogacy implies womb for rent. My wifes womb is for our child. We adopted a special needs child - a child who needed a warm, healthy womb as a first crib. When we accepted our child into our lives, we opened our entire selves.
The argument that may be valid (and I humbly submit to the Catholic Church and renounce my opinions above if they deviate from current/future teachings) is the relationship between husband and wife and our right to become parents exclusively through each other. It’s at this point, I look to my mother Mary. Through her total donation of self, she came to bear a child, “How can this be, since I have no relations with a man?” “Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord. May it be done to me according to your word.”
I don’t have all the answers, and I pray I have not offended the Lord in our discernment. The idea of consent comes to bear strongly here - Mary is a good example. This is an important dimension of authentic love (especially if you’re familiar with Natural Family Planning!) In this instance, the adoption and accepting of a child into my wife’s womb can only happen through our consent, and openness to the call of God. Anything less is a betrayal of our marriage.
I pray that when my judgement comes, Christ will say, “I presented myself to you as a cold, frozen child - you gave me everything. Well done my faithful servant.”
We adopted several. 3 were thawed. 1 didn’t survive. 2 were viable (1 was borderline viable), both were implanted. We have a beautiful son today.
This matches the current live birth rate of ~30% and is typical from what I’ve heard.
We’re assuming the “healthy” one survived, and not the “borderline” one. Only God knows the answer to that one.
“WELL over 50% of frozen embryos stored today cannot ever become babies, nor even second trimester fetuses”
You are obviously well aware of the likelihood of “in vivo” fertilized eggs making it full term. The vast majority don't make it, so you and I are the unlikely natural survivors of a rather ruthless process. In short, the odds of “naturally” fertilized eggs making it to viability are pretty slim anyway, and most moms never realize the egg was even fertilized, or that they may have been pregnant (but you knew that, of course).
I guess, assuming that a noninvasive inspection methodology will be developed relies on faith as well, but it is something of a race with the Reaper for viable embryos (or is it embrii?) as I still think holding them in a frozen state is not nearly as “suspended” as we would like to believe. There's gotta’ be some delta factor, as there is with everything besides God's love.
Irregardless, I appreciate that there are folks in the business, such as yourself, that are cognizant of the problem. I mean, grad school was a long time ago for me, and the whole process still leaves me ethically squeamish. It is nice to know scientists are concerned humans as well (I never had any doubts about that). Thank you very much for your concern, and potential resolution to what is a publicly unrealized problem.
Understand, that I now have a nephew and a niece genetically unrelated to their birth mother, or “birth” father. They would not be here were it not for the whole in vitro fertilization and implantation process. Most of the extended family has no clue about how they got here (and some would have a cow if they knew, though they would have difficulty justifying their objections rationally). It truly is amazing that something like this could actually occur in our lifetimes. Though they're basically cuckoo birds, they're MY niece and nephew, though they may never know that they aren't genetically related to any of us. One of those miracles that you just have to smile about. :-)
I think that the argument is that in its current unregulated form the infertility industry would act irresponsibly and create more embryos on the pretext that they would all be adopted. I get the impression that if a limit was placed on created embryos an exception could be made for embryo adoption in those instances it is not feasible to implant the embryo in the donor’s own uterus.
I think he fears an assembly line of embryos being churned out by infertitlity clinics to meet some kind of anticipated demand. Rather than a way to morally deal with embryos which for whatever reason can not be implanted into the donor’s own uterus. The goal being to have extra embryos being the exception to the process rather than the standard.
The advance of knowledge can be used for good or evil. IVF, as an exsmple, brings about these dilemmas. Doesn’t that tell us that this practice is out of the bounds of natural procreation?
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.