IVF and the Experimental Use of Embryos

 In 1978 “without cultural agreement or ethical approval, Drs. Steptoe and

Edwards reversed infertility by creating a ‘test tube’ baby.
 The catch is that in order to develop and perfect IVF, they created and
destroyed a hundred human embryos.
 Many regarded IVF as a perversion of the natural way of creating humans,
outside of sexual intercourse and the womb.
 Even now, anyone interested in IVF will create and freeze many more
embryos than they will ever use.
 This raises the ethical issue of whether they can be destroyed, used for
research, and even who gets “custody” should the couple want a divorce.
 The standard view of those who oppose Human Embryonic Stem Cell
or HESC research is that a human being begins to exist with the
emergence of the one-cell zygote at fertilization.
 At this stage, human embryos are said to be “whole living member[s] of the
species homo sapiens … [which] possess the epigenetic primordia for self-
directed growth into adulthood, with their determinateness and identity
fully intact” (George & Gomez-Lobo 2002, 258).
 But there is reason to think that species membership is not the
property that determines a being’s moral status.
 We reserve that classification for “persons” which exhibit the cognitive and
psychological traits we normally associate with mature human beings
 Something like self-consciousness.
 But that would preclude infants from being persons.
 Even an embryo has potential in the sense of having an “active disposition”
and “intrinsic power” to develop into a mature human being (Lee an
George)
 The problem is that an embryo cannot reach its potential all on its
own.
 It must be implanted, receive nourishment, and avoid exposure to
dangerous substance in utero.
 Spare embryos created in vitro lack these requirements.
 Even if embryos are not persons and so lack a right to ife, the may still have
an intreinsic value that makes them deseriving of respect.
 And this may place moral constraints on their use:
  “The life of a single human organism commands respect and protection … no matter
in what form or shape, because of the complex creative investment it represents and
because of our wonder at the divine or evolutionary processes that produce new
lives from old ones.” (Dworkin l992, 84).
 Still, it is not clear how much

Famously, the first successful clone was created in 1997: a lamb named dolly.
Dolly was created using a technique called fusion, in which a donor cell is placed
next the cell with its nucleus removed and then “fused” with a electric current.
This triggers the development of an embryo, using the DNA from the donor
animal.
Dr. Wilmut started with 277 sheep eggs, fused them with sperm in voiducts.
247 of those were removed and only 29 implanted.
Of those, 13 pregnancies resulted, 3 of which survived until birth, and only Dolly
was healthy enough to live much past birth.

Stem cells can be found in embryos, taken from umbilical cords, and even from
adult bone marrow, as well as the liver, skin, and intestines.
Although adult stem cells aren’t quite as primitive or flexible, they do tend to
specialize more quickly.
However, they aren’t present in near enough of the same quantiles that would
needed for research and don’t grow nearly as well in vitro.
They can develop into any type of cell and, in theory, could be directed to form
new bones, neurons, heart tissue, and cure any number of genetic disorders.
A human embryo can be transformed into a “stem cell factory” to continually
produce stem cells for research purposes.

Different administrations have gone back and forth over the question of whether
federal funds will be used to fund embryonic stem cell research.
Many states have passed laws outlawing research on human cloning outright.

In 2007, Dr. Yamanaka discoverd how to revert a somatic skin cell back into its
primordial, undifferentiated form, which could then be turned into any type of
cell.
This has the potential to eliminate the need for embryonic stem cells derived
from actual embryos and eggs.
Yet so far IPS cells, as the reverted ones are called, have not been hugely
therapeutic.
And they have resisted being turned into types of cells different from the ones
they were originally derived from.
That is, it is harder to turn revert a skill cell into a primordial form and then
encourage it to make a heart cell than it is to make it into a skill cell again.

If the embryo has the moral status of a full human after it is conceived, then
embryonic stem cell research is tantamount to research on human subjects.
It has the potential for personhood.
Indeed, embryos are occasionally “adopted.”
However, we now know that any cell of the body can become a person simply by
taking out its nucleus and implanting it into an egg without a nucleus.
Does that mean any human cell has the same dignity as a human adult?

Critics of stem cell research worry about the slippery slope.

They worry if we can research on pre-embryos or embryos before implantation,
then why not on implanted embryos.
It is not too much of a stretch to think we would become comfortable conducting
research on fetuses, even at a late stage of development.

If embryos are persons, then any unused embryos created for IVF would need to
be implanted or it would be murder.
Any research done on embryos for the purposes of genetic diagnosis or medical
research would be murder.
And any use of intrauterine birth control devised and Plan B (the day after pill)
would be murder because they prevent the implantation of embryos as well.

Because an embryo lacks a nervous system, it cannot feel pain.

Thus it cannot have any desires or interests with respect to how it is treated.
If sentience is the source of an individual’s moral status, then neither embryos,
works of art, or plants have a right not to be used for our purposes.
Others, like Fr. McCormick, have argued that even if we don’t know exactly when
they embryo becomes a person, we should treat them persons from the start, just
in case.
But we might want to distinguish from something that has moral status, and so
moral rights, with something that has moral value and so should be protected.
If the embryo is valuable in the same way as a work of art or nature has value,
then we still need very good reasons for destroying it.
Respecting an embryo in this sense would mean that we shouldn’t use them as
food, use them as o in avant garde works of art, or played with in labs to create
exotic mixed-species for fun.
Thus while we might sell body parts from cadavers for medical research, embryos
shuldn’t be bought and sold in this way.
Research should be seen as a privilege and only used in for research with the
most potential for medical breakthroughs.

By delaying or prohibiting stem cell research, we delay or prevent potential

breakthroughs.
We may be able to save countless lives and treat or reverse untold numbers of
diseases.

If you were allowed to harvest your own stem cells, and grow spare organs, you
may be able to live indefinitely.
How much value to these potential opportunities have versus the value of the
embryos we will destroy.

Reproductive Cloning
Note that if you were to clone yourself, you would not be creating someone with
your same personal identity.
Rather, you would be creating a new person with your genetics; more like a twin,
than a copy.

Is cloning against the will of God because it is, in some sense, “unnatural”?
It is not prohibited in scripture, obviously, since now ancient person would have
even understood what cloning was.
But people think that Genesis sets the precedent that all reproduction should be
between a man and a women through sextual intercourse.
So you have to assume you know God’s will without the aid of his alleged
revelations.
Furthermore it is difficult to object to cloning but allow for IVF.
Cloning is essentially a technique for using IVF to create a twin of yourself.

There is the added worry of creating “designer babies” or babies with genotypes
selected by their parents rather than selected randomly by nature or intentionally
by God.
Do you violate your child’s rights by forcing blond hair on them, a predisposition
for athletics or acting, etc.?
It is potentially selfish to impost upon a child your wants and desires.
Will you be disappointed if the child doesn’t have the characteristics you wanted?
When would it be legitimate to abort a fetus without the traits you wanted or
with traits you didn’t want?
What if it is, not a baby with a genetic impairment, but simply a female rather
than a male?

In order to develop the technology to clone humans, there will be many failures.
That means many will have unintended genetic abnormalities and defects before
the science is advanced enough to be on par with the 2% of live-born babies that
have some genetic defect.

One long term consequence of designer babies would be a stratification of society

into those with and those without superior pre-selected genetics.
Since these technologies would be expensive, the rich would have
disproportionate access to them.
But is this really any different from the sorts of advantages the rich can buy for
their children even now?
Better healthcare, education, travel-experiences, technology, etc.

One of the biggest arguments in favor of IVF and cloning is that parents who
would otherwise not be able to have a child with their genetics, now can.
It also allows a women more freedom about when to have a child since they can
freeze healthy eggs while young and wait until they are ready to have children
latter when their have careers and financial stability.