The Village Green
Frozen Embryos: Take Responsibility
There are no ideal scenarios, but we must work for a solution.
David Cook | posted 7/28/2010 09:03AM
David Cook, a Wheaton College bioethics expert, Ron Stoddart, director of Nightlight Christian Adoptions, a nonprofit that facilitates Christian adoption, and Ellen Painter Dollar, the author of a forthcoming book about Christian perspectives on reproductive and genetic technology, weigh in on what should be done with frozen embryos left over at fertility clinics.
Before we can set significant guidelines regarding the fate of unused, frozen human embryos, we must ask: Who is responsible for them? Since embryos cannot make decisions, who gets to decide whether they will be donated, adopted, or destroyed?
Parents decide for their children, and families decide what will happen to an unconscious or dying family member.
Good fertility clinics will have clear protocols protecting the rights of parents and donors. The embryos in question were created to help the childless, so adopting or donating fulfills the same goal for the benefit of the child and the childless.
But parents are not the only ones who need to take responsibility. Governments, hospitals, and medical authorities also need to have clear guidelines about dealing with potentially profitable human tissue. In the UK, a scandal involving hospitals taking human material from patients and using it without their consent led to funerals for body parts. The prospect of holding funerals for thousands of destroyed embryos is horrifying; yet if we believe we are dealing with human beings, what does it mean to give embryos dignity and respect?
Embryos must be protected from evil. Not everyone believes that embryos are fully human or deserve all the protection given to unborn life. But Christians believe there is a clear progression from the moment of fertilization to the person's death.
For those who believe in the sanctity of life, adoption, donation, or the development of artificial wombs to carry children who are not adopted seem the morally acceptable options for preserving life.
On the other hand, we cannot force those who are unconcerned about embryonic life to preserve it unless we offer genuine alternatives to the slaughter of the innocent: destroying "spare" embryos. Clinics, donors, and parents try to sell human tissue ranging from blood to organs, so they must take up the ethical question of selling embryos.
It is entirely plausible to go so far as pushing to legally ban human embryo destruction. Germany has such a ban, and also has one of Europe's most thriving biotech research sectors.
At the heart of fertility medicine is a deep desire to have children, help the childless, and make a great deal of money. A growing number of couples are desperate for children; adopting unused embryos to be carried in the wombs of infertile women may be those couples' best chance of having children.
Adoption is clearly a way of allowing embryos to be born and rectifying a bad situation in the child's best interest. It would proactively encourage the creation of fewer embryos, rather than reacting after the problem has been created.
Parents, medical workers, and everyone who is concerned about embryonic lives should begin by accepting responsibility for the problem and work for a solution that embraces the sanctity of life and protects the unborn. There are no ideal scenarios, but we can protect the innocent, preserve human life, and care for the needy.
Copyright © 2010 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.
Related Elsewhere:
David Cook teaches philosophy at Wheaton College and is an expert in bioethics. Ron Stoddart and Ellen Painter Dollar also weighed in.
RSS Feeds
Audio
Twitter
1 of 2
share this page
E-mail
Print
Post
Average User Rating: Not rated
Paul M
Fertilize fewer eggs - or just one at a time? It is more expensive and as a result there will be fewer babies so the present procedure may be more "pro life". Natural reproduction doesn't always work and embryos do not always implant and survive but are passed in the monthly cycle. Adoption is a good option. Someday there may be artificial wombs in which embryos could be raised - there would still need to be adoption but this could help women who couldn't carry a child.
Victor H
Here's that "we" again--"Before we can set significant guidelines..." What are you talking about here? Government action? Laws? Something that carries more weight than simply stating your opinion? I find it disconcerting to think of FORCING the owners of unused embryos to donate them to strangers. This is getting into tricky territory. If abortion is legal at the stage of development at which the embryos are frozen, then logic suggests that it must also be legal to destroy unused embryos. Whether it's morally right or not, I cannot see a law forbidding their destruction standing up to legal challenge.