reproductive technology

[sunshine]

so what does everyone think of new reproductive technologies that assist infertile couples in conceiving a child? do you agree with these procedures, or do you think these doctors are trying to "play God"? do couples "have a right" to conceive their own biological child, or is adoption a better option?

by new reproductive technologies I'm referring to everything from in-vitro fertilization to drugs that stimulate ovulation to surrogacy to egg/sperm donors (and everything else that they offer nowadays to treat infertility!)

 

[gwyyn]

Ever since all this new technology has come about in helping infertile couples concieve, I'm reminded of a book I read in highschool, titled "A Brave New World"

kinda scarey???

 

[Blessed-one]

um.... i dunno really, consider how there's a natural course in everything, i suppose we've been interfering a bit, allowing the world to overpopulate too much.
back to the question, i can accept drugs that stimulate ovulation but not the one that involves a surrogate mom. They're sort of the same thing.. but in the latter case, a lot of issues are arising and the original mom has absolutely no capability of bearing an offspring (else she may've taken the simulating medicine).
As for doctors playing God, during Jesus's lifetime, He healed many people too, i think it's ok so long as it doesn't cross the ethics boundary.

 

[gwyyn]

Where does the boundry of ethics start in fertility technology? I understand that cloning is wrong. But what about the new technology that is coming about that allows the parent to pick what kind of child they want from embryo's already fertilzied in a tray??

 

[sunshine]

I think the issue is partly if we consider infertility to be a "sickness or disease" (i.e. something we should cure) or if it's something we shouldn't control.

personally I don't agree with very invasive methods, such as in-vitro (and all it's other versions such as GIFT and ZIFT). I think that ovulation stimulation drugs should be used to a certain extent, however even then there can be problems. Look at cases like the McCaughey septuplets! I've read their book and I know their story (the mother took a powerful ovulatory drug and it resulted in all seven eggs being fertilized and carried to term). I know that's an extreme case, but the rates of multiple births have skyrocketed since the introduction of these drugs. It scares me, given the already explosive population rate.
I think that adoption is a good option for couples who cannot conceive and require extensive technological intervention to achieve pregnancy. There are so many children, both in North America and abroad who need families.

as an aside...I attended a (fairly prestigious) university for the past four years. In our school papers there were constantly advertisements for people, either from agencies or individual couples, looking for egg/sperm donors. Why advertise in a university paper? because these people want their kids to have "good genes" (read: "smart genes"). I find that rather frightening that people want "designer babies".

 

[gwyyn]

yes that is scary, and I agree with you on the invitro part. i think adoption is the best choice, cause there are alot of children who need good homes. in fact some friends of mine recently adopted a baby girl. they feel so lucky. they didn't even try any of the drugs or invitro to try to have one of their own. they just resigned that adoption was the best choice for them and the use of their money.

wish more people would think like this

 

[Caedmon]

I have heard of cases where a couple fertilizes multiple eggs and the doctor places multiple fertilized eggs into the womb because of the uncertainty of implantation. It's not enough that some fertilized eggs, tiny new lives, are destroyed by not being inserted, but also in some cases a "selective termination" is performed if 2 or more of the eggs implant. I don't see how this is different from abortion, but others are welcome to disagree.

This also brings up another issue. I find it ironic that some couples spend hundreds of dollars a year to get pregnant, and yet you have so many, in fact most, other couples that are spending hundreds of dollars a year to prevent pregnancy with contraception. Am I the only one who sees this irony?

 

[sunshine]

Originally posted by humblejoe
I have heard of cases where a couple fertilizes multiple eggs and the doctor places multiple fertilized eggs into the womb because of the uncertainty of implantation. It's not enough that some fertilized eggs, tiny new lives, are destroyed by not being inserted, but also in some cases a "selective termination" is performed if 2 or more of the eggs implant. I don't see how this is different from abortion, but others are welcome to disagree.

yes, you're right. "selective abortion" is practiced quite frequently with invitro fertilization. many fertilized eggs are implanted at once because the procedure is so invasive, and the risk of the egg not implanting is quite high, therefore it wouldn't be "efficient" to implant only one at a time. I believe that they are trying to get a law passed that only three eggs can be implanted at once (to prevent extremely high multiple births which are a major health risk), but I could be wrong. however, even when three or more fertilized eggs are implanted, the chance of even one "taking" isn't that great.
the rationale behind "selective abortion" is that high multiple births (3 or more) are a major risk to the health of the mother. also, when three or more embryos develop together, the risks for various problems increase dramatically (problems such as low birth weight, premature labour, both of which lead to many other health risks for the babies upon delivery). so it becomes quite a dilemma - carry all the embryos although all the babies will be at increased risk for problems, or carry one or two with less risk. however, I agree with you that "selective termination" is a disguised term for abortion.

This also brings up another issue. I find it ironic that some couples spend hundreds of dollars a year to get pregnant, and yet you have so many, in fact most, other couples that are spending hundreds of dollars a year to prevent pregnancy with contraception. Am I the only one who sees this irony?

interesting idea. I believe the stats are that 1 in 10(?) couples has some form of infertility. it's sad that often the people who want a child so badly, and would be wonderful parents, cannot have them.

 

[No gods]

Originally posted by sunshine
I think the issue is partly if we consider infertility to be a "sickness or disease" (i.e. something we should cure) or if it's something we shouldn't control.

personally I don't agree with very invasive methods, such as in-vitro (and all it's other versions such as GIFT and ZIFT). I think that ovulation stimulation drugs should be used to a certain extent, however even then there can be problems....

Infertility is a physical "condition" just like heart disease and liver failure are "conditions". Do you disagree with invasive methods for treating the latter two "conditions"? People outside of a particular issue tend to have a lot of opinions, but you know the old saying, "First walk a mile in my shoes." You personally can't understand infertility unless you have been there, so for you to "personally" agree or disagree with a given treatment is irrelevant. If the technology exists to help improve the quality of life of a human, then it should be used at that persons request. Denying someone treatment is wrong.

...I think that adoption is a good option for couples who cannot conceive and require extensive technological intervention to achieve pregnancy. There are so many children, both in North America and abroad who need families

Really? Have you checked into the number of healthy infants available for adoption in the US or are you just making a broad and sweeping uniformed statement? Not that unhealthy or older children don't deserve a good home because they do. And people in a position to adopt these children should. But many people want their own children. They also may not be able to handle the problems that come with adopting older or problematic children like disassociative disorders, other emotional problems, learning disablities caused by drug/alcohol abuse, etc. And have you checked into the cost of both domestic and foreign adoption?

as an aside...I attended a (fairly prestigious) university for the past four years. In our school papers there were constantly advertisements for people, either from agencies or individual couples, looking for egg/sperm donors. Why advertise in a university paper? because these people want their kids to have "good genes" (read: "smart genes&quot. I find that rather frightening that people want "designer babies".

Why advertise in a university paper? How many young men and women over the age of consent read those papers as opposed to other outlets? Most people advertising for egg/sperm donors are professionals and would prefer that their children have at least something in common with them. Where would you have them advertise? Maybe post a note on a street corner where drug dealers sell their wares? I bet those drug users could use the money more than the college students, right? Oh, don't worry about the fact that the eggs/sperm could be compromised by the drug abuse. I have to say, if people are going to use egg/sperm donors I would MUCH prefer them to use the eggs/sperm from intelligent young adults in the hopes that these so called "designer genes" provide them with an intelligent child that can contribute positively to society.

 

[VOW]

I don't believe in surrogacy, egg donors, sperm donors, in-vitro fertlization, or any of the other drastic measures being used today. While I sympathize with the infertile couples, I admit I cannot completely understand their pain because I have had two of my own children.

However, I do understand the teachings of the Catholic Church. Artificial contraception, as well as artificial conception, is going against the will of God.

The purpose of the sexual union is two-fold: to create and nurture the relationship of the married couple, and to produce children. Once you start to interfere with this dual purpose, you ask for trouble.

The Church's teachings on contraception are this: by divorcing the procreative function from sex, you are opening the door to abuse.

However, when the marital act is interfered with in order to create a child, you are also corrupting the original purpose. The couple must either have sex or obstain from it according to the directions of the fertility specialists. The woman must track her body temperature, she must inject herself with drugs to artificially create an environment hospitable to fertility. The man must avoid hot baths, and wear certain underwear. The entire marriage is perverted in an attempt to focus everything on the ultimate: to make a baby. The tension and the high failure rate often destroys the marriage completely. Both parties can suffer horrendous depression, and they can refuse to be around anyone with small children because of their frustration.

Then there's the ethical dilemma of the extra embryos. Discard them? Donate them to stem cell research, where they will ultimately be destroyed? Freeze them for future use? Who would get custody of them should the couple divorce, or die?

And the term "selective reduction" is an abomination. A sonogram is done of the pregnant uterus, and one or more of the embryos is chosen to be "reduced." A needle is inserted in the mother's abdomen, through the walls of the womb, and the heart of the embryo is pierced.

There are throw-away children all over this world. Some are mixed races, some are born drug-addicted, some are "special needs" children. Instead of looking for perfection, why aren't these children taken into homes, and raised with Love?

Perfection isn't available in this life anyway, only in the Next.


Peace be with you,
~VOW

 

[Blessed-one]

Originally posted by gwyyn
Where does the boundry of ethics start in fertility technology? I understand that cloning is wrong. But what about the new technology that is coming about that allows the parent to pick what kind of child they want from embryo's already fertilzied in a tray??

the case you stated above is quite an extreme one. Usually we can see which one is very unnatural as opposed to mildly unnatural (drug stimulation). Being able to choose the sex of a child would create a great unbalance in the gender of the world, imagine what it would be like in places like China.

 

[No gods]

Originally posted by Blessed-one
Being able to choose the sex of a child would create a great unbalance in the gender of the world, imagine what it would be like in places like China.

Well, there would at least be less baby girls left to die on the side of roads and in garbage cans China.

Just because someones religion doesn't agree with certain treatments for certain conditions doesn't give that person the right to deny that treatment to someone seeking it. There are religions that don't believe in ANY medical intervention. Should the beliefs of this religion be forced upon the rest of us?

 

[Blessed-one]

no, we can only give you the facts, our own experiences and thoughts, believing or not is a choice, and it is one that must be made willingly. (good try though, No gods. Even for us who believe in the same God, we still have different opinions regarding matters, but there's an underlying principle that unites us).

 

[sunshine]

Originally posted by No gods

Infertility is a physical "condition" just like heart disease and liver failure are "conditions". Do you disagree with invasive methods for treating the latter two "conditions"?

of course I don't disagree with methods for treating heart or liver disease. but there is one big difference...those diseases are FATAL. infertility isn't fatal. in fact it's only diagnosed when a person tries to have a child.

People outside of a particular issue tend to have a lot of opinions, but you know the old saying, "First walk a mile in my shoes." You personally can't understand infertility unless you have been there, so for you to "personally" agree or disagree with a given treatment is irrelevant. If the technology exists to help improve the quality of life of a human, then it should be used at that persons request. Denying someone treatment is wrong.

no I haven't been through infertility, so you're right I don't have the same personal perspective. however, I still have a right to my opinion, as the possibility exists that someday when I want to have children, I may not be able to, and then I will have to face these issues. so yes, it is relevant if I agree or disagree. this issue has the potential to affect a great deal of people.

Really? Have you checked into the number of healthy infants available for adoption in the US or are you just making a broad and sweeping uniformed statement?

Please don't assume things about me. first of all, I live in Canada, so I'm not really concerned specifically with US data. second of all, yes I do personally know couples who have been on waiting lists for many years. I realize that there is a long procedure for adoption in North America, however I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. it gives people time to be sure this is what they really want to do. plus it gives the time for proper screening of families.

But many people want their own children. They also may not be able to handle the problems that come with adopting older or problematic children like disassociative disorders, other emotional problems, learning disablities caused by drug/alcohol abuse, etc.

there's always risks for kids having problems, whether or not they're biologically yours. say you went through invitro, found out you were pregnant with triplets. do you know the increased risks to each of your three babies? higher multiples are a major occurence with infertility treatments, and at are much greater risk for birth complications and all the problems that come with it. The McCaugheys wanted their own biological children. do you know that two of them suffer cerebral palsy now and can't walk? that's a challenge to a parent if I ever saw one!

And have you checked into the cost of both domestic and foreign adoption?

have you checked into the cost of infertility drugs or other treatments? keep in mind pregnancy is rarely achieved on "the first try" of any treatment.

Where would you have them advertise? Maybe post a note on a street corner where drug dealers sell their wares? I bet those drug users could use the money more than the college students, right? Oh, don't worry about the fact that the eggs/sperm could be compromised by the drug abuse.

Please don't put words in my mouth. I never even hinted that I thought it would be a good idea to advertise to drug dealers to get their egg/sperm.

I have to say, if people are going to use egg/sperm donors I would MUCH prefer them to use the eggs/sperm from intelligent young adults in the hopes that these so called "designer genes" provide them with an intelligent child that can contribute positively to society.

who's to say that an intelligent adult will have an intelligent child because of biology? it's the whole nature/nurture debate. if given a good healthy environment, any child can realize their full potential. and so what if the kid doesn't become the next Einstein or even go to university? in my opinion we value these traits of intelligence too much in our society. what happened to human variation?


another aside...why are people so hung up on biology? why do we insist that we have our "own biological children"? my guess is there's definitely an ego thing going on, maybe people like to see a resemblance of them in their child. are people afraid they won't love a child as much if it's not biologically theirs? from all the personal adoption stories I know of, I can tell you this isn't the case. the adopted children (some now adults) that I know are all happy, well-adjusted individuals, who know of their adoptive status and are perfectly content in life.

 

[TheBear]

I am going to have to side with medical and biological advances. If you are going to say that medical procedures that enhance or make possible fertilization, is "playing God", then all other forms of medical science and biology, that improves quality of life, and also extends life, should also be considered "playing God". Therefore, the entire medical and biological fields should just fold up tent and go home. Got in a car wreck? Oh well, you're on your own, if you are going to live or die. And women, don't bother with self breast exams, what good would that information do you, anyway? Let nature run it's course.


John

 

[Ben johnson]

The term, "Viability", has been touted as the "measurement" of Human value and worth by the pro-abortion* side. As if worth is determined by the sophistication of our machines.

The day is coming when a child will be viable from conception.

What will be the argument for abortion then???

_____________________________________________________________
* If you're gonna say "Pro-CHOICE", then you MUST call the other side, "PRO-LIFE".

If you call the OTHER side, "ANTI-ABORTION", then you MUST call the one side, "PRO-ABORTION"

When one person utters "pro-choice", and "anti-abortion", it is BIASED!!!

 

[VOW]

To Bear:

I'm sorry, but I see a major difference between puncturing the heart of a fetus to "reduce" a pregnancy and a woman performing a self-exam to check for breast cancer.

I see a major difference in "experimenting" with viable embryo in hopes of creating stem cells for research and transplanting a heart from a brain dead person to someone needing a new heart.

The artificiality of fertility medicine is a far cry from the work to sustain or improve life with other scientific advances. No deliberate deaths are caused when someone needs surgery or chemotherapy. And with in-vitro fertilization, you WILL have "leftovers."


Peace be with you,
~VOW

 

[TheBear]

Originally posted by VOW
To Bear:

I'm sorry, but I see a major difference between puncturing the heart of a fetus to "reduce" a pregnancy and a woman performing a self-exam to check for breast cancer.

I see a major difference in "experimenting" with viable embryo in hopes of creating stem cells for research and transplanting a heart from a brain dead person to someone needing a new heart.

The artificiality of fertility medicine is a far cry from the work to sustain or improve life with other scientific advances. No deliberate deaths are caused when someone needs surgery or chemotherapy. And with in-vitro fertilization, you WILL have "leftovers."


Peace be with you,
~VOW

To Vow:

Sorry, I guess we are talking about two different conversations. I was replying to the thread topic, and the opening post. What are you talking about?

John

 

[VOW]

To Bear:

I am going to have to side with medical and biological advances. If you are going to say that medical procedures that enhance or make possible fertilization, is "playing God", then all other forms of medical science and biology, that improves quality of life, and also extends life, should also be considered "playing God".

That was your reply I was responding to. The procedures which make possible fertility in in-vitro fertilization include those things I mentioned. And I don't consider them to be on the same level as heart surgery or kidney transplants, or chemotherapy.


Peace be with you,
~VOW

 

[stillsmallvoice]

Hi all!

Lessee, I'll start with us (DW & I) personally. We were married in December 1988. After several years of trying to conceive a child the good old fashioned way, we turned to a fertility specialist. Since then, we tried AIH, 9 IVFs & 2 FETs, all failed. Even though we did just about every test there is, DW has never become pregnant & the doctors have no idea why. We are among that small minority of couples whose primary infertility is wholly unexplained. In May 1997, we adopted a 4-month-old baby boy, whom we named Yohanan (means "God has been gracious" in Biblical Hebrew). In November 2002, we adopted a 2.5-week-old baby boy whom we named Naor (means "has been made light" in Modern Hebrew). We quit fertility treatment for good sometime after we adopted Yohanan. (On the first day of our 2-day New Year, we read I Samuel 1:1-2:10 in synagogue. Until we adopted our boys, we would usually sit there [in the men's & women's sections, respectively] sobbing our hearts out during the reading.)

We are orthodox Jews. Insofar as I understand it, the orthodox Jewish view in a (kosher) nutshell is that as long as the sperm & egg come from a married couple (and there are proper safeguards to ensure that there are no mix-ups), procedures like AIH, IVF & FET (this includes GIFT & ZIFT, micromanipulation, etc.) are OK & anyone assisting a childless couple to conceive is doing holy & praiseworthy work. Donor sperm is NOT permitted. Donor eggs are less of a problem; Jewish law considers the woman who bears a child to be its mother.

Fortunately, we did all of our fertility treatments & adoption here in Israel. Our health fund covered just about ALL of the expenses for our various fertility treatments. We paid 10% of most prescription drug costs and that's about it. So costs were not an issue for us.

All domestic adoptions here are, by law, under the sole & exclusive jurisdiction of the Ministry of Labor and Social Welfare's Child Welfare Service. (All CWS adoptions are closed & blind.) American-style private adoption is quite illegal here, thank God! I say "Thank God!" because it is tantamount to the buying and selling of human flesh & prices couples without means right out of the "market".

Contraception is generally frowned upon & not permitted unless there is some overriding health concern (i.e. pregnancy would place the mother's health/life at risk); non-barrier methods are more acceptable in such cases than barrier methods.

Questions?

ssv