Subscribe to Christianity Today
Subscribe to Christianity Today
Donate to Christianity Today
login | my account
February 13, 2012

Home > 2007 > April (Web-only)Christianity Today, April (Web-only), 2007
U.K.'s Solution to Multiple Problems: One at a Time
Britain may tighten IVF laws to prevent multiple pregnancies.




New legislation proposed in the U.K. will introduce tighter regulations for in vitro fertilization (IVF) procedures and potentially decrease the number of IVF-related abortions. The legislation, if passed, will prohibit doctors from implanting more than one embryo at a time in women under 40. Including the statistics for women over 40, who could still receive more than one embryo, this would mean that the chances of multiple pregnancies would drop from 25 percent to 10 percent, decreasing health risks for both fetuses and mothers.

Doctors usually transfer multiple blastocysts—embryos made up of 80 to 100 cells—at a time to a patient's uterus. The Human Fertility and Embryology Authority (HFEA), which regulates U.K. fertility clinics, allows doctors to implant two embryos in women under 40 and three in women over 40. Transferring more than one embryo increases the likelihood of a pregnancy, but it also increases the likelihood of multiple pregnancies.

For mothers, carrying more than one fetus presents an amplified risk of life-threatening conditions such as diabetes and heart attacks. It also presents risks to the fetuses, who are more likely than single babies to be stillborn, to die in the first week of life, to be disabled, or to be born prematurely. "For the children's sake and the mother's sake, there is less risk in putting in one [embryo] at a time," said Dr. David Stevens, family practice physician and chair of the Christian Medical and Dental Association.

Frequently, when more than one transferred embryo implants, doctors recommend that women "selectively reduce" their pregnancies, aborting one fetus in order to give the other one a better chance of survival. If the number of multiple pregnancies could be reduced, doctors would perform fewer selective abortions.

"I'm pleased [the U.K. is] moving toward less risk of multiple pregnancies, which is really what this is about," said Nigel Cameron, director of the Center on Nanotechnology and Society at the Illinois Institute of Technology and president of the Institute on Biotechnology and the Human Future. Cameron noted, however, that the legislation "is not out of concern for embryos; it's out of concern for multiple pregnancies and the problems they cause for fetal health as well as maternal health."

Albert Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, agrees that the legislation is not about life ethics. "Nothing here is gained in terms of the status of the embryo," he said. "As a matter of fact, this could very well lead to even larger numbers of human embryos that, given the policies of the HFEA, are destined not only for interim storage but for long-term destruction."

Cameron said proposed legislation springs out of the British government's biomedical policies. "Britain has taken the lead globally with a very liberal approach to what you can do with embryos, but it has a very strong regulatory nature."

While the legislation is beneficial in the sense that the proposed law would decrease health risks for mothers, limiting the number of embryos implanted does have its drawbacks. "The downside of this legislation is that it may preclude a small number of women and their spouses from having children, as it may require more attempts in successive cycles and time may run out before they are successful," said Hessel Bouma III biomedical ethics expert and biology professor at Calvin College.

According to Stevens, although the legislation is likely to pass in the U.K, it is unlikely that a similar measure would be introduced and passed in the U.S. anytime soon. "Our country has this unspoken right to reproduction," he said. "[Most people believe] no one should tell you anything about having your children." Ultimately, Stevens says, this is not a helpful presupposition, as it has prevented the reproductive health industry from governmental regulation.





Christianity Today


  


Subscribe to Christianity Today and get 3 free trial issues. No credit card required.

Please allow 4-6 weeks for delivery. Offer valid in U.S. only.

If you decide you want to keep Christianity Today coming, honor your invoice for just $19.95 and receive nine more issues, a full year in all. If not, simply write "cancel" across the invoice and return it. The three trial issues are yours to keep, regardless.


Click here for international orders2-for-1 Gifts!

Annie Witz

April 13, 2007  9:06pm

The problem with IVF is that it makes embyos that will die most of the time. Look at the stats of how many rounds of IVF fail. You are making embyros that will die. This is why so many in the prolife world are against this. While I say this with a heavy heart for those who can't have a baby the ends don't justify the means. Those who think this is OK should ask themselves when did Christ become both God and man? It was at conception and not sometime after that. As to the comments from Mr Tenhula protecting life from conception is not pandering to the right. It is a fundamental right that all Christians should be fighting for. Couldn't I say to him that those in the western world have the luxury of even considering IVF while those in the third world would probably be shocked by the very thought of it. Christians not only do more humanitarian aid than any other religion and most know that we should do more!

arussell

April 13, 2007  7:18am

What they don't mention in this article is the tremendous costs involved with IVF, emotional and financial. We, like Adrienne, fully understand the moral implications of going through the process. However, following a plan like Germany means that I would probably have only one child. It is tremendously expensive and not covered by insurance in most states. Additionally it is a huge emotional strain to go through the process. I can't imagine having to do that over and over. We implanted two embryos, and I am pregnant with one. We will use all of our frozen embyros or adopt them to another Christian family. I don't think it is a place that lawmakers should be involved. That is best left to parents and their doctors, and that is why as a Christian you choose your doctor wisely.

Adrienne

April 12, 2007  1:32pm

My husband and I have had two children by IVF. We are staunchly pro-life and would never have considered it as an option if the hospital we used did not have rigorous standards. They never implant more than two at a time. They also provide opportunities for donation of embryos for adoption and will not destroy embryos unless the patients insist on it (which, of course, we don't). They also offer cryo-storage for future attempts. We are both concerned with people who fertilize eggs willy-nilly, feeling free to destroy those they aren't interested in. There are, understandably, people who have not considered the ethical implications of IVF, but rest assured, there are ways to approach infertility using IVF that do not violate moral principles. If done cautiously, thoughtfully and prayerfully, it can be a viable option, I think, even for believers.

Warren Johnson

April 12, 2007  1:10pm

Hessel Bouma stated: "The Christian community would be well served if we could assist infertile couples in recognizing that the inability to conceive or bear a child need not be perceived as a curse or a failure to 'be fruitful and multiply.'" My wife and I found ourselves approaching our 14th anniversary without children. We were under no misperception of our situation as being under a curse or of having failed to keep a divine commandment. Nevertheless, we felt great anguish. I was a Ph.D. student at an evangelical seminary, so I had received the kind of education Bouma advocates, but the pain remained. Although I am an educator, I am not convinced that "education" is the solution to this problem. Before our 15th anniversary our daughter was born, and since then we have had a son. Our joy at their presence is no more derived from the fulfillment of a divine imperative than was the anguish of their absence. Our joy is in a unique relationship with these two gifts of God.

You must be a Christianity Today subscriber or have created a FREE registration to post comments
[Browse More Christianity Today]



Search
Search
Search
Scripture Search
Go Deeper

Books & Culture
Christianity Today
Church Law & Tax Report
Church Finance Today
Leadership Journal
Men of Integrity
Kyria.com
ChristianityTodayLibrary.com
PreachingToday.com