The Ethics of IVF

In his latest installation on J’accuse, late night commentator David Borg tells us that “There are many serious ethical issues regarding in vitro fertilization which you conveniently failed to mention such as the freezing and destruction of human embryos. Besides there are studies showing that IVF births have a higher rate of birth defects.” Never missing a beat when it comes to marching in step with the latest Vatican diktat Borg is keen to tell us what J’accuse “conveniently failed to mention” while referring shadily to mysterious, unquoted “studies” showing higher rates of birth defects.

What this champion of vatican contradictions fails to point out is that this is another of the blind alleys up which the Vatican has walked in the same vein as the infamous “condoms are bad for thee” saga in Africa – I’m sure that there are studies that point that the Vatican is indirectly responsible for millions of deaths with this indoctrination. In any case the scientific miracle (oh the provocative oxymoron) of IVF might be guilty of being too close to nature. It is in fact not just man with his IVF dabbling that risks losing a fertilized egg or two in order to increase the chances of an unhappy, barren couple to become pregnant with child. Mother nature also has the “unnatural” habit of creating and fertilizing more eggs than become babies. Funny how the Vatican hath not declared mother nature an anathema – or God himself for having allowed such an abomination to happen.

The insipid ease with which such men as David rush to judgement over a system such as conception by IVF is what I found most unnatural and revolting. Since the god in which they seem to believe is not as interventionist as in days past – when he toyed with the couple Abraham and Sarah endlessly (not to mention all the wombs in Abimelech’s household – Genesis 20:18), today’s couples do not resort to Hagar the handmaiden for the joy of procreation but have Professor Edwards (Nobel Prize Winner for Medicine, 2010) to thank for the greater possibility of having their own offspring.

Here’s the Times (UK) editorial on the same point:

Professor Edwards’s work has its critics. The Roman Catholic Church opposes some IVF, on the ground that it can involve the destruction of embryos. And it is beyond argument that this is what happens: fertility clinics generally fertilise many eggs, and often implant two, to maximise the chance that one will survive. The remaining tiny embryos are then frozen or discarded.

But there is nothing anti-life in IVF: the embryos are created to produce babies and allow the chance of parenthood to couples who want a child of their own. Nature itself creates and fertilises many more eggs than become babies.

The embryonic cell can also be taken apart, at an early stage, to yield stem cells. Research using stem cells offers the promise of finding a cure for debilitating conditions such as Parkinson’s disease.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Vatican Keeps Up Attack on Nobel Committee Over IVF (nytimes.com)
• IVF discovery opened Pandora’s box of ethical issues (reuters.com)
• Vatican official criticises Nobel win for IVF pioneer – BBC News – BBC News website (richarddawkins.net)
• Vatican keeps up attack on Nobel committee over IVF (reuters.com)
• New drug to give IVF patients more comfortable option (theage.com.au)
• British in vitro pioneer wins the Nobel Prize in medicine (philly.com)
• IVF Imaging Eliminates Octomoms (outsidethebeltway.com)