Versión de HTML Básico
Ethical Implications of In Vitro Fertilization
65
relationships, ought not to be discounted entirely. If only for very practical
reasons, such as medical records, children often need to identify their
genetic parents. Many contemporary adoptees testify to the psychological
value of learning about those to whom one is bound by genetic ties. Addi
tionally, a child resulting from the unique combination of the parents’ repro
ductive cells—in a very real sense, their selves—may be a significant sign of
their life together.
Kept in proper perspective, genetic parenthood is valuable. It would be
unreasonable to deny couples unable to conceive without IVF the chance to
experience such parenthood merely because the potential for misunder
standing exists. It is highly unlikely that Christians will ever totally disregard
genetic parenthood. (Random child-swapping at birth or mandatory com
munal child care from very early ages would seem to be ways a community
could curb a fixation on genetic parenthood. These have not, to my knowl
edge, been endorsed by any major Christian group.) Unless and until such a
state of affairs comes about, it would be cruel to denounce as selfish or idola-
irous those who desire to establish a genetically based family, even when a
procedure like IVF is required.
Other objections to IVF have focused more narrowly on the technique
itself. Some fear that fertilized ova created by the procedure may be
destroyed or used for experimentation, rather than transferred to the uterus
of the woman from whom they were obtained. Recovering and fertilizing
several ova during IVF is very common; hormonal stimulation of the ovaries
is a standard element of the procedure and frequently results in the produc-
lion of more than one mature ovum.
Objections to possible destruction of or experimentation with fertilized
ova stem from a contention that human life is worthy of moral respect (and
even legal protection) from its origins in the fertilized ovum. To use fertilized
ova for experimental purposes or to discard them would be, according to
ihese critics, tantamount to abortion or human experimentation without
consent.
This potentially serious reservation about IVF, however, is overcome by
the particular procedure in use at the Eastern Virginia Medical School in
Norfolk (the most “prolific” clinic in the U.S.). Where more than one ovum
is recovered by the laparoscopy, all are exposed to sperm. Any which mani
fest successful cell division (and thus are “alive”) are inserted into the
woman’s uterus and thus given an opportunity for implantation. None is
used for experimental purposes or destroyed.
However, if a clinic chose to deviate from this procedure and retain some
fertilized ova, the objection would be properly focused on the morality of
destroying or experimenting with fertilized human ova, not on IVF itself.
Setting aside the question of whether discarding a fertilized ovum
would
con-
siitute abortion (and further, whether such abortion ought to be prohibited