"Fertility clinics across the country, according to the most recent data available, held about 400,000 frozen embryos as of May 2003. Patients had reserved 88 percent of them for their own future use, and they had earmarked about 3 percent for medical research. Two percent — or about 9,000 embryos — were available for donation to other couples, according to Sean Tipton, director of public affairs at the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, which collected the data."
….
"But the debate over embryo adoptions is just beginning to take shape. 'There are very few moral issues on which the Catholic Church has not yet taken a position. This is one,' said Cathy Cleaver Ruse, chief spokeswoman for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops' Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities." - Alan Cooperman, Washington Post
What is the proximate primary end for an embryo? Birth. What is likely to happen to abandoned IVF embryos? They're either discarded or used in experiments, i.e. killed. Does the Catholic Church approve of IVF? No (cf CCC 2377). Does the Catholic Church approve of ESCR? No (cf CCC 2273-2275).
Now we're in a pickle.
Which is worse: allowing hundreds of thousands of embryos to be killed or bypassing the sex act so that those embryos have a chance of being born? I say desperate times call for desperate measures. IVF should still be regarded as objectively wrong and no new embryos should be made, but Catholics should be permitted to adopt extras.
Every child that was conceived by rape or fornication was conceived during an a violation of sexual morality - an act of sin. Yet there is no moral quandry for any Catholic desiring to adopt such a child - or any for that matter. Adoption in no way validates the sinful act involved in the child's conception. Why, then, is there any doubt regarding adoption of embryos? Is the failure rate a problem? If so, why? Would it not be better for some to survive than none?
What do you think about this? Chime in. The comments are open and I'm all ears. 
Update 06/01/05: Catholic apologist Jimmy Akin has addressed this issue on his blog as well. He's much more thorough in his breakdown of the issue and he gets far more readers, so I heartily recommend reading his post and the attached comments.
Funky Dung
Comments 21
What is the RCC rationale for restricting IVF?
+0
Posted 01 Jun 2005 at 1:43 am ¶You know, I think I agree with you. I can't come up with any good disagreement.
On a somewhat related note, pick up a copy of this week's People Magazine… there's an article about how American children are being adopted by couples from Canada and parts of Europe. I never, ever would have guessed it, though I'm not sure I'm really that surprised.
+0
Posted 01 Jun 2005 at 1:44 am ¶Sibert… the RCC says that the marital act is to occur within marriage and be both unitive and procreative and that all conditions must be met. Anything else would be considered sin. IVF takes the unitive aspect away from procreation. As Funky Dung pointed out, in the case of rape, the act itself would be a sin as it is most likely not occuring within marriage, nor would it be unitive.
+0
Posted 01 Jun 2005 at 1:50 am ¶Jimmy Akin has a lively debate on this. You may want to check out, especially since those who are against embryo rescue are making some arguments here (I get the feeling we may not see so many on this blog, and that side should be understood).
http://www.jimmyakin.org/2005/05/what_to_do_abou.html
+0
Posted 01 Jun 2005 at 2:14 am ¶This is a very difficult question. I wish the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith would give some guidance on it. The best case scenario is the illegalization of IVF, but that seems unlikely, especially as our politicans continue to push for ESCR, which would be doomed to extinction if IVF were outlawed.
+0
Posted 01 Jun 2005 at 5:50 am ¶There is an article about this in the National Catholic Bioethics Center Quarterly (if I remember correctly, it's a point/counterpoint kind of thing)…I'd be happy to copy it for you Eric, if you'd be interested in it. It was also touched on by Father Pacholczyk of the NCBC on a recent Catholic Answers show.
+0
Posted 01 Jun 2005 at 2:52 pm ¶Sibert, in addition to Amy's comments, which a good protestant ought to accept (the best do, but it is not required for admission), the process of IVF generally intentionally creates more embryos than can be expected to survive or be implanted. It is simply a matter of economic and medical efficiency. It is possible to fertilize only one oocyte ex utero. This may even be practiced in some cases. But given the high rate of failure, this would make this inordinantly expensive procedure even more expensive, given the likely need to repeat it.
If one believes "life begins at conception" (which is, of course, a mere tautology) or, more accurately, that human beings ought be accorded care and protection from the moment of conception, then IVF can only be seen as a violation of this rule… even IF one does not accept the RCC's teaching that conception must be the result of the sex act. BTW, the same rule applies to hormonal contraception as well, and I find it staggering how many supposedly pro-life evangelicals are unaware of this. (Not only do I find this staggering, but it was one of the major reasons I've left the evangelical church…)
In olden times, people sacrificed their children to Moloch. The beating the drums drowned out the blood-curdling screams of the kids. It was really wicked, and "Our Father Below" was quite pleased…. but he had Bigger Plans: Modern Technology has enabled the moral equivalent of Moloch worship, but without this strained belief in such a silly god, and free of uncomfortable images of live children being burnt alive. The more real gods of personal autonomy and actualization have proven to be much more popular… and much more greedy!
Cheers!
+0
Posted 01 Jun 2005 at 4:19 pm ¶Emily et al.: The Nat'l Catholic Bioethics Quarterly has an entire issue dedicated to this (I have a copy), and there have been some articles on this topic published in earlier issues a couple years ago. LMK if you want to look at them.
The Pitt Law Library also has the journal in its periodicals section as well, as well as all back issues. (I know most of the the readers can't make much use of this, alas!)
+0
Posted 01 Jun 2005 at 5:52 pm ¶I think it should be acceptable. If they are not adopted, they will be destroyed. Bypassing the sex act to bring them to life seems like a far better option than to simply let them be destroyed.
On another note, there are plenty of children (already born) in America who are in need of adoptive parents. Most of them, unfortunately, are older or have special medical needs, and so they languish in foster care.
Adoption of any sort — whether of an embryo or of a child already born — is beautiful, and a noble choice.
+0
Posted 01 Jun 2005 at 7:23 pm ¶I've thought about this a lot. We've been relatively successful procreators (5 live births plus 2 miscarriages), and we have about 5-7 useful "child-bearing" years left. Now we'd have no difficulty having more kids the old-fashioned way, if experience is any guide at any rate. And we wouldn't have to pay for it. What would the price be to "adopt" an at-risk embryo? $7000? Would it even be allowed by the "Embryo Shop"? Would (should?) we choose the gender, race, intelligence level, handedness, nose size, similarity to our already born (who all kinda look a bit alike)? I am, troubled by the idea put forth by some of Akin's commenters that adoption would somehow encourage the practice of IVF, ameliorating the guilt of "wasting embryos" for some, and turning parenthood into even more a commodity than it already is.
Even after reading Jimmy Akin's mostly sensible detractors however, there is no question in my mind that it is morally licit to adopt said embryos, even if the adoptees are unmarried, even if they're lesbians, even if they're pro-choice, pro-death penalty, pro-war, free-trader Republicans! In fact, I have no doubt that people should, as a matter of duty, be lining up to adopt them. Heck, I don't even have a problem with the embryos being implanted in cows if that offers them hope of survival! Surely this technology is closer at hand than fully artificial wombs. But the big question is whether I will put my money (and we, together, my wife's body) where my mouth is… and this, I must confess, is very difficult in our situation. But somehow I feel that we ought to.
Cheers!
+0
Posted 01 Jun 2005 at 7:48 pm ¶Dern…
"even if the adoptees are unmarried…"
Errr…. I meant
"even if the adopters are unmarried…"
Both those embryos are getting mighty precocious these days
+0
Posted 01 Jun 2005 at 7:55 pm ¶"What is the proximate primary end for an embryo? Birth. What is likely to happen to abandoned IVF embryos? They're either discarded or used in experiments, i.e. killed."
I would question whether "the proximate primary end for an embryo" is birth. That might be the proximate primary end for an embryo that's in a particular environment (e.g., a uterus), and so long as you ignore the possibility of natural miscarriage (which is statistically significant—45 percent?), but it's not the proximate primary end for an embryo as an embryo independent of that particular environment. Removing the embryo from that environment makes its chemistry nonsensical so that it no longer has a "proximate primary end" insofar as that chemistry is concerned.
In other words, I think your argument requires a more holistic perspective. You're not just talking about an embryo, but an embryo plus a particular environment (e.g., embryo plus a uterus in the proper condition). Then you have a "proximate primary end," barring the possibility for natural miscarriage.
Even then, you still have to show that merely having the "proximate primary end" of "birth" automatically gives this embryo/uterus complex a value whose contravention equals "killing" that's analogous to less contentious forms of "killing." As well, could it be possible that there is a volitional difference that would lend to a legal differentiation akin to that between "murder" and "manslaughter"?
So I have a hard time seeing the "killed" angle outright, and once that becomes questionable, the rest of the argument stalls until it's resolved.
+0
Posted 02 Jun 2005 at 5:35 pm ¶"In other words, I think your argument requires a more holistic perspective. You're not just talking about an embryo, but an embryo plus a particular environment (e.g., embryo plus a uterus in the proper condition). Then you have a "proximate primary end," barring the possibility for natural miscarriage."
The natural environment for an embryo is a uterus. An embryo is "supposed" to be born from out of that uterus. That is the way humans evolved/were designed. God/biochemistry/whatever intends for an embryo to reach term and be born. Anything less is a failure at some step of the process. Something was malformed, a hormone was missing, etc. Natural miscarriage is a failure in the mechanisms of procreation. Granted, it is a "tolerated" failure and, on the whole, the system is robust enough to account for and survive it. Nonetheless, it is still a failure. Nature still "expects" an embryos to reside in a uterus, reach full term, and be born.
As Jerry pointed out, natural miscarriage is a red herring. People die all the time from ailments and old age, but we still prosecute people for ending another's life before natural processes do.
+0
Posted 02 Jun 2005 at 5:56 pm ¶"The natural environment for an embryo is a uterus. An embryo is 'supposed' to be born from out of that uterus."
I question that one, too. How far do you go with this "supposed to" stuff? Am I supposed to be wearing glasses? Am I supposed to be sitting in an air-conditioned room? Are people supposed to be flying around in planes? You could argue that we weren't "evolved" or "created" to do any of those things. Or, you could argue that those things are a natural extension of our phenotype and thus exactly what we were "evolved" or "created" to do.
If we didn't evolve (or weren't created by God) to be able to remove embryos from uteruses, or to cultivate them outside of uteruses, then there's the strange problem of our being able to do those things. If you take the God-created route, then you have humans that were created with abilities that far outstrip what they are "supposed" to be doing, which raises some disturbing questions about this God. If you take the evolved route, then you have people doing things that defy their evolution, meaning that they got these abilities from somewhere else, which points back at the God-created route, and those same disturbing questions.
+0
Posted 03 Jun 2005 at 12:04 am ¶I don't how far we can or should take the "supposed to" reasoning Theo, but our race would look darn silly if it couldn't get beyond the blastocyst–of course, it'd only look silly for a few decades before the adults died out with nobody to take over. Let's work on that before worrying too much about eyeglasses and the like, however handy they may be.
+0
Posted 03 Jun 2005 at 1:03 am ¶A few things about IVF:
Not all IVF creates more embryos than can be used. It is quite possible to only create enough embryos to implant. I'm not positive, but I believe this is the approach required in some countries.
In some ways, this is a matter of statistics. Let's say, for a given situation, the odds of a single embryo implanting are 19% (compare that to 20% for normal conception and realize the 1% difference may not be statistically significant). Let's work with 20% because I can crunch those numbers in my head.
How many embryos do you create at a time? How many embryos can a woman carry to term successfully? 1 is normal, 2 is a bit tougher, 3 is difficult and 4 is doable but resulting in significant risk to both mother and children.
If you implant 4 embryos, there is a .8*.8*.8*.8=.4096 ((2^(3*4))*.0001)= 40.96% chance that no implantation will occur. That means that there's a 1-.4096= 59.04% chance that at least one implantation will occur. There is also a .2*.2*.2*.2=(2^4)*.0001=.0016 chance that all four will implant.
If you are unwilling to accept the .16% risk, then you only implant 3 embryos, which gives you a .8*.8*.8= 51.2% chance of no implantation and a 48.8% chance of at least one.
The odds of twins or (or triplets for the 4 implanted eggs) are exercises left to the reader.
(Note: I did not worry about sig figs. I left the numbers so that others could follow my work.
Since you are not making more than the implantable number of embryos, that means a separate IVF cycle must be done if no implantation occurs. IVF cycles (especially the harvesting of eggs) are the expensive part — I'm not sure of the exact cost but figure $20,000 a cycle as a guestimate.
The extra embryos are created to reduce costs.
If PGD is done, many labs require 8 or more embryos to work with.
If there is a situation (mother over 40, etc.) where the odds of creating a viable blastocyst are low, things get real expensive very quickly if one attempts the "only the usable embryos per shot" approach." 6-8 embryos could be implanted per attempt, but 5 or more embryos is a minute but real possibility. Most of the time, beyond 4 embryos, "selective reduction" is employed - and it has been employed for as few as two.
Because the number of pregnancies is not known until after neural tissue has formed, I would argue that selective reductions are causing the death of a human being. If such a situation arises, selective reduction may be necessary. Attempts to carry seven embryos to term are so likely to result in the deaths of all babies and perhaps even the mother that I question the morality of not doing a selective reduction. We hear of the successful septuplets. I wonder how many we never hear of because a catastrophy occurs.
Obviously the proper choice is to avoid the possibility in the first place.
If it becomes possible to freeze eggs, then the cost of creating only the implantable embryos approach will drop dramatically. But as stands, embryo adoption is incredibly inexpensive — often cheaper than regular adoption.
I do not see the problem with IVF per se that the Catholic church does. I do see problems with how it is implemented in many cases.
I also have a significant problem with everyone in the church (Catholic or otherwise) feeling it is necessary for them to investigate the method of conception of every birth. Some people will not leave it there, and insist on knowing whether a married couple engage only in forms of sex that the questioner approves of.
If, for example, a couple chose embryo adoption, must it be announced as such to the world? There are very good reasons that "Is that kid natural, IVF, embryo adoption, or Memorex?" should simply be met with a response of "I'm sorry, I didn't expect you to be so ignorant as to ask such a question."
+0
Posted 03 Jun 2005 at 2:37 am ¶"I also have a significant problem with everyone in the church (Catholic or otherwise) feeling it is necessary for them to investigate the method of conception of every birth."
I see the Church defending the lives of everyone after they're conceived, regardless of the mechanics of conception, I never heard of priests investigating the origins of a couple's children.
I too would have a problem with such meddling, but I don't know that it's a problem.
+0
Posted 03 Jun 2005 at 3:16 am ¶I'm thinking of the people in the church, and not even thinking only of the Catholics.
I've been asked what sorts of positions my wife and I have sex in, apparently because some positions are not considered "Christian."
Rumor has it that St. Augustine was one of these type folks - anyone know if there's any truth to it?
+0
Posted 03 Jun 2005 at 7:27 pm ¶"I've been asked what sorts of positions my wife and I have sex in, apparently because some positions are not considered "Christian.""
Well, I'm on your side against that meddling, Rob, but I have not read of anything coming from the Vatican or other official sources that would brook this. They would urge certain guidelines in respecting one's spouse, of course, but would not pry like that.
I've read a fair bit of Augustine, and while he was a bit of a prude at times, I never read that, either directly from him or second-hand.
+0
Posted 03 Jun 2005 at 9:47 pm ¶Rob, if you'd like to get an idea of what the Church does and does not approve of regarding sex, I recommend reading "Good News About Sex and Marriage
+0
Posted 03 Jun 2005 at 10:50 pm ¶Rob, thanks for the probability lesson. That was my understanding, but I didn't express it very well. So basically, if one believes that human life should be protected from conception, then IVF, as it is typically practiced, would be out of bounds, even if one does not concur with the RCC's teaching on how conception should take place.
Now you say:
If it becomes possible to freeze eggs, then the cost of creating only the implantable embryos approach will drop dramatically. But as stands, embryo adoption is incredibly inexpensive — often cheaper than regular adoption.
Incredibly inexpensive? How incredibly inexpensive could it be relative to a romp in the hay with one's wife, which is (more or less) free? Regular adoptions are unbelievably expensive, even "third world" ones. So being cheaper (even much cheaper) than that doesn't inspire confidence. I guess what I'm wrestling with is really whether we ought to do such an adoption in place of having another child the old-fashioned way. I.e., is it a moral imperative, assuming one could afford it, which [gulp] I suppose we could. Now of course, you apparently don't see intrinsic ("brain activity") value in the frozen embryo, so I don't suppose you're the right one to ask. But assuming that such a being ought to be accorded the right to life and care (which I believe it ought), should I "adopt" such a one, even if it were costly, in place of merely having a child naturally. This is the big, nasty question for me.
I also have a significant problem with everyone in the church (Catholic or otherwise) feeling it is necessary for them to investigate the method of conception of every birth. Some people will not leave it there, and insist on knowing whether a married couple engage only in forms of sex that the questioner approves of.
It is of course not for everyone, nor an arbitrary questioner, to know, but I can see how in churches that lack teaching authority, such situations might arise: lay people taking confessional matters into their own hands. But churches generally have (and probably ought to have) doctrines that apply to personal behavior, and while it is not the business of everybody in the church, it is the business of the church (the pastors and elders) to discipline its members, part of which might possibly include asking otherwise impertinent questions from time to time. Of course, healthy and truthful confessional practice would probably obviate such a need.
Cheers!
+0
Posted 04 Jun 2005 at 6:59 am ¶Post a Comment