Invitro is defined as, “In glass, as in a test tube” (Taber’s cyclopedicdictionary,1993), hence with reference to invitro fertilization, the term“Test tube baby”. The first ‘test tube baby’ was Louise Brown of England(Jonsen, A.
R., 1996). Dr. Patrick Steptoe and Professor Robert Edwards combinedan ovum from Mrs. Brown, and sperm from Mr. Brown cultured it in a petri dish,and reimplanted the now embryo into Mrs.
Brown’s uterus (Jonsen, A. R.,1996).The result was the same as a child born in the usual way, only the means to theend was different. The media had a field day with this, and since then,reproduction as we know it has changed. We now use the term “assistedreproduction” to describe a host of methods used to assist infertile couplesto have children.
A menagerie of large terms, abbreviations, and acronyms areused under the umbrella of this term, such as GIFT, IVF, FSH, AID, etc. Thebottom line is that technology has allowed man to take yet another matter intohis own hands, that may be considered “playing God”. As with any newprocedure or product, there are always “bugs to work out”. Sometimes we cananticipate what these will be, but many times we “cross that bridge when wecome to it”. Such seems to be the case with assisted reproduction. Consideringthe complicated custody battles already occurring with regard to our“naturally made children”, we have seen, and can anticipate more tangledlegal webs ahead.
Not much has been done to anticipate the complexities involvedwith assisted reproduction. In 1975, a federal law was enacted that created anEthics Advisory Board (EAB)(Caplan, A. L., 1990).
In 1979, this organizationissued a report merely stating that invitro fertilization was worthy of monetaryfunds (Caplan, A. L., 1990). The EAB disbanded in 1979 (Caplan, A.
L., 1990). In1994, The American Society for Reproductive Medicine designed a set of ethicalconsiderations, but compliance is voluntary (Klotzko, A. J., 1998).
Since noreal regulatory agency exists, IVF is done as providers see fit. The formationof The American Society for Reproductive medicine reflects the fact that thereare clearly many ethical issues with regard to IVF. Three issues are thefollowing: 1. Previously, an embryo has been a part of a woman’s body.
Roe vs.Wade based it’s decision on abortion being part of a woman’s privacy. Withregard to frozen embryos which are not a part of the women’s body, does shehave the right to choose their fate, and does the father have equal say? 2. Dothe potential parents of these embryos have the right to change their mindsabout becoming parents once the embryos have been frozen? 3. In complicatedmatters with multiple parents, does multiple parental roles with visitationrights adversely affect a child’s social development? When one is discussingabortion, the argument heard most often by the advocates of pro-choice is thatthis is a matter of a woman controlling what goes on with her body.
Furthermore,advocates claim, that as such, the elimination of the fetus falls under thisright of privacy. Pro-life advocates feel that these embryos are individualhuman beings entitled to the right to be born. Embryos are considered life inthe earliest of stages. However, what we have here are frozen embryos, suspendedif you will in a state of non-life. They clearly do not reside in the woman’sbody as of yet, and if kept in the current state, will never give breath.
Itseems that the prochoicers would have to extend their definition of these beinga part of the woman’s body, to giving their potential to be such, meaning aswell. While they are not a part of the woman’s body yet, this is the intendedplace for them to grow, and obviously they cannot grow inside of the father, atleast yet. The prolife, and paternal argument would be that these embryos areclearly not a part of the woman’s body. They could be implanted in any woman,not necessarily the mother.
Therefore, the mother does not have the right toabort the embryos. Furthermore, the male may have the right to claim custody forimplantation in another suitable candidate other than the mother if she isunwilling. What we have in the case of Mary Davis and Junior Davis is a womanfighting to have her own embryos implanted in her own uterus. Based on some ofthe facts above however, does the father now have more right over the embryos,since this process has not yet taken place? Obviously the situation here is verycomplex. Unfortunately these types of situations could be prevented throughforethought.
Couples undergoing these types of procedures clearly need toanticipate all scenarios. Practitioners could easily fit issues into thecounseling phase, and even request to have documentation of such before theseprocedures are done. A contract could cover many different possibilities.Anticipatory decision-making certainly would alleviate the daunting task ofdeciding these issues after the fact. However, the court system often has theresponsibility of deciding these very personal matters. What is clear here isthat we have seven potential people.
We also have a willing, assumingly capablemother. What we do not have is a willing father. If a person who had been raisedsolely by his/her mother were asked if he/she would like to never have beenborn, I doubt too many would say yes. It is for this reason, that I feel theembryos certainly are entitled at their chance at life. I further qualify thisargument to state, that if the situation were reversed, with the father desiringto implant the embryos into another female (possibly his new partner), I wouldadvise that the embryos should be given to the father. Furthermore, this fathercould not take back the children if the previous attempts had been successful.
Therefore, why should he be entitled to do so now? The statement that these“children in vitro” whose best interest required “that they be availablefor implantation” is key. These are truly “children in vitro”. They arenot part of the mother’s body. Therefore, their options at life do not hingeon one certain person and the privacy issues relating to her body. Now I wish toaddress some details here.
The father does not wish to be a parent here. Doesthis clear him of responsibility to these children? Clearly, the father’smorality should preclude that he would want to be involved in the life of hischildren. Obviously, this is not always the case. Therefore, is he obliged tohave visitation, or pay support? My argument for this is no. The father hasshown his desire not to become a parent. As such, he relinquishes his tie tothese children.
He should not be required to pay support, nor have visitation.The best interest of these children does not lie in having a “shotgun”father. What I would say to these parents would depend on my role. As a healthcare professional, it would be difficult to step in and advise at all.
I wouldrather try to facilitate examination of their own beliefs. Hopefully, I wouldhave had the pleasure to meet with this couple before this scenario, in order toassist with some preemptive decision making. If this couple however, was trulydesiring an honest an open opinion, and asking for my true feelings in advisingthem, what would I say? My speech, would go something like this: “What we havehere will influence moral decisions of many in the future. It must be consideredthat what you do here, will be a looked upon by other couples facing these verydifficult issues in the future.
Coming to an agreement based on sound moralreasoning will show an example for the future. If couples begin to work theseissues out without legal litigation, these very personal matters remainpersonal. These are issues of family. How you wish to handle your family isconsidered a right by many.
If these situations can be agreed upon, lawmakerswill be able to avoid interference in family matters. The creation of laws andregulations will inevitably fall short of the vast amount of variability neededto fairly pervade over every situation. With that said, I would implore you towork out your differences. “If you are still unable to do this, allow me to becandid.
It is my opinion that these are seven potential children. They werecreated by the both of you at a time in your life when this was something youboth wanted. They were created through thought and planning. Many things in lifeare done by accident, but these embryos are not one of them. If you still do notwish to be a parent, Mr.
Davis, then perhaps you would acquiesce if somestipulations were made. Mrs. Davis has asked to be a responsible party for theembryos. Perhaps we could create a release of responsibility for Mr. Davis,relieving him of all duty in matters of visitation and support. I do notnecessarily condone this release from fatherhood, but it may provide an avenueto come to an agreement.
Unfortunately, the idea of whether or not these embryosare considered children weighs heavily on the matter. This issue boils down toyour feelings on abortion. Heavily weigh your options and remember the worldwill be watching.” The option exists in the current situation to give life tothe embryos with neither actual parent needing to really be involved in thematter i.e.
donation to the infertile couple. Reality here however, lies in thepossibility that the child may hold the parent responsible in one way, shape orform in the future. Yet another possibility, a statistically sound one at that,is that the embryos may not even come to term successfully. There are manyunknowns here, and all factors cannot be anticipated. Society can now controlmany factors, but fate still pervades some aspects.
Along with the technologicaladvances in society, we have created options that never would have beenconceived before. Issues of reproduction and abortion are issues that once werecontrolled by fate. Having a hand in such matters of such monstrous proportionrequires us as people to hold ourselves to a standard that possibly cannot bedone by humans. For this reason, reproduction may have been better served by theone who used to control it, before man took over.BibliographyCaplan, A. L.
(1990). The ethics of in vitro fertilization. In R. T. HullEthical issues in the new reproductive technologies (pp.
96-108). Belmont, CA:Wadsworth. Jonsen, A. R. (1996). “O brave new world”: Rationality inreproduction.
In D.C. Thomasma & T. Kushner (Eds.) Birth to death: Scienceand bioethics.
(pp.50-57). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Klotzko, A. J. (1998).
Medical miracle or medical mischief? The saga of theMcCaughey septuplets. Hastings Center Report.28(3), 5-8. Shapiro, R.
(1998). Whoowns your frozen embryo? Promises and pitfalls of emerging reproductive options.Human Rights25(2). Taber’s cyclopedic medical dictionary(1993.
). Philadelphia,Davis Company, F. A.
