Please, explain: Part Deux
A post below about Obama’s follow-up musings on stem cells and ethics prompted some interesting discussions, in particular surrounding a paper that Cathleen Kaveny cited, “The Ethics of Stem Cell Research,” by Gene Outka, a Lutheran ethicist at Yale. The paper is posted at the web site of the President’s Council on Bioethics, and it defends using “spare embryos” from fertility treatments.
That is one “exit strategy” for the untold thousands of frozen embryos that will expire even in their suspended animation within a few years. Another is embryo adoption, by which couples can take such embryos and the woman can attempt to gestate them. Granted this is rare thing, and would likely “save” only a small percentage of frozen embryos. But what is somewhat perplexing to me is that the Vatican appears to have put the kybosh on this option. A Catholic News Service story after the release of “Dignitas Personae” on Dec. 12 features the consternation of a New Hampshire couple that has given birth to three children who were adopted as frozen embryos “and believes their road to parenthood was morally righteous.”
The Vatican apparently hasn’t made a final call, but is clearly leaning against allowing this:
Speaking at the Dec. 12 Vatican press conference to explain the document, Bishop Elio Sgreccia — former president of the Pontifical Academy for Life, who helped prepare the Vatican’s new bioethics document — told reporters: “The basic advice, explicitly stated in the document, is that embryos must not be frozen. It is one of those actions that has no remedy. Once it is done, correcting it implies committing another error.”
Archbishop Rino Fisichella, current president of the academy, told reporters that “the discussion is still open” and the Vatican has not completely ruled out the possibility of embryo adoption, although it is leaning toward an entirely negative judgment because embryo adoption involves the future parents in an immoral process.
My question: Such a ban would create a difficulty for Catholics (like me) in explaining the church’s approach to embryos, which the church considers human life, or human beings. The current stance seems to be that this human life cannot be discarded, yet neither can it be saved. That seems like an unusual dead-end, a damned-if-you-do-or-don’t conclusion. Is that unusual in Catholic (or other) ethics? Is there another morally viable option?
I don’t believe the embryos “expire.” They can be frozen indefinitely, right?
Perhaps the Vatican will conclude that adopting embryos is still wrong, but those who do it are less culpable?
JC, I believe they have a certain “shelf life” of viability, to put it crudely. I thin it’s less than a decade.
JC, I should amend my assumption (always a good idea)–it seems embryos can remain viable a decade or more (and I imagine technology will continue to improve) though it also seems viability goes down…Though fertility clinics don’t appear to advertise that. There is also the question of couples advancing past their child-bearing/rearing years, hence what to do?
Here’s an interesting discussion and some facts and surveys numbers:
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/08/deciding-the-fate-of-frozen-embryos/
Thank you!
A doctor friend tells me that over 50% of embryos in the ‘natural’ process fail to implant. He thinks it is a stretch that these failed embryos that fail to implant are fully human. If they were fully human this would mean that over 50% of human creation never gets beyond a two cell stage…Sacred yes, but baby equals no,
“… the Vatican has not completely ruled out the possibility of embryo adoption, although it is leaning toward an entirely negative judgment because embryo adoption involves the future parents in an immoral process.”
I presume the immoral process is artificial implantation of the embryo?
But isn’t implantation by rape, incest and fornication also immoral?
And yet adoption of babies brought to term under those circumstances is lauded, I presume because the adoptive parents had nothing to do with the implantation itself, but merely picked up the viable infant.
Which means that in at least this one instance, attempting to save a life could be a sin.
Strange territory that makes my head hurt.
But it sure puts my quandary over whether to make brownies or a bundt cake for tonight’s fish fry look in perspective.
Since the Church is opposed to IVF, there would be consistency if it were to also oppose the adoption of frozen embryos. I guess the thinking would be that permitting such adoption would in some sense weaken the Church’s opposition to the artificial procedures that resulted in the frozen embryos in the forst place.
To some degree, this issue has parallels to the issue of use of condoms to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS in Africa. Since the Church opposes use of condoms in any circumstance, creating an exception, in the Church’s view, would weaken its stance on condoms in general.
The issues are only going to get harder now that science is tinkering with reproduction on a cellular and molecular level. Cloning…gender selection…designer children. There are many new bioethical issues both the Chirch and secular society will have to address.
“I presume the immoral process is artificial implantation of the embryo? ”
My guess is the immoral process would be the in vitro fertilization that created the “spare”. I’m further guessing that the Vatican’s concern would be that permitting an “adoption” would seem to morally legitimize the IVF industry, which I’m still further guessing the church would see as a social structure of sin. E.g. suppose the clinic charges $10,000 to adopt and implant the embryo. That money would in essence be supporting the IVF industry, even though it isn’t being spent directly on in vitro fertilization.
If I’m right in this, then perhaps there would be a way to facilitate an adoption that wouldn’t support the industry.
I’m just speculating – the whole topic is such a grey area that I get a headache trying to think it all through.
And, btw, brownies are always the right answer.
“The issues are only going to get harder now that science is tinkering with reproduction on a cellular and molecular level. Cloning…gender selection…designer children. There are many new bioethical issues both the Chirch and secular society will have to address.”
The church must address all these areas, but I hope it’s done in a non-condemnatory way. The church’s main role in all this shouldn’t to analyze and critique and condemn, but rather to promote the sacrament of marriage. I guess I see that as the most pressing pastoral need. Traditional procreation should be coming along for the ride in the church’s message about marriage.
Since the Church opposes use of condoms in any circumstance, creating an exception, in the Church’s view, would weaken its stance on condoms in general.
William,
It is not exactly true that the church opposes the use of condoms in any circumstance. (There has just been a discussion of this topic on Vox Nova.) The case of married couples, one of whom is infected with HIV and the other not, is still an open question. Some say that condoms used in this situation, without contraceptive intent, are permissible under the principle of double effect. I have pointed out that Humanae Vitae says:
A married woman may take “the pill” to treat endometriosis and need not be concerned that it is an “impediment to procreation.” Should condoms to prevent the transmission of HIV be considered illicit when “the pill” is not, in and of itself, forbidden?
A study on the use of condoms within marriage was completed and given to the pope in 2007. What I hope is not the case is that the Vatican is avoiding this issue because they are afraid that if they announce condoms are licit in this one situation, people will be “confused.”
Which means that in at least this one instance, attempting to save a life could be a sin.
Fascinating observation, Jean!
A doctor friend tells me that over 50% of embryos in the ‘natural’ process fail to implant. He thinks it is a stretch that these failed embryos that fail to implant are fully human. If they were fully human this would mean that over 50% of human creation never gets beyond a two cell stage…Sacred yes, but baby equals no,
Ed,
The figures I always quote say the failure rate is between 60% and 80%. It is staggering to think, isn’t it, that if life begins at conception, those of us who have been born are the minority. As I like to point out, when Jesus said, “He who has ears, let him hear,” I used to interpret him to be referring to everyone. But if life begins at conception, then 60% to 80% of human beings never lived long enough to develop ears! Where do they fit in the overall scheme of things? Why would God create a world with people in such a way that most people bypassed the world?
Right,
Just recently Bill Clinton could not seem to understand the difference between a ferilized embryo and an implanted embryo.. if the ‘smartist guys in the room’ can’t get it straight where are we in explaning moral principles?
Jim says: My guess is the immoral process would be the in vitro fertilization that created the “spare”. I’m further guessing that the Vatican’s concern would be that permitting an “adoption” would seem to morally legitimize the IVF industry, which I’m still further guessing the church would see as a social structure of sin.”
Jean says: But by that reasoning, adopting a child created by a rapist, would be off-limits for fear that it would legitimize rapes. Or adopting abandoned children would be seen to abet abandoners. Or … you get my drift.
Meantime, the brownies are cooling in the pan.
Though, speaking of moral quandaries, I have to say I’m hinky about all-you-can-eat fish fries and a big dessert table on a day of abstinence during a penitential season. However, the priest insists that the dessert table brings in more diners and money, so I’m going with obedience over conscience here, and may God have mercy on my conflicted soul.
To Jean:
“God, the Father of mercies,
through the death and resurrection of His Son
has reconciled the world to Himself
and sent the Holy Spirit among us
for the forgiveness of sins;
Through the ministry of the Church
may God give you pardon and peace (if needed!)
BROWNIES are always a great choice!
“HINKY” – which definition fits? (or do they all?)
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=hinky
While I was browsing the web came across this from WHISPERS IN the LOGGIA which some might find apropo of the discussions on Obama, abortion, stem cells, Notre Dame, bishops et al.
http://whispersintheloggia.blogspot.com (see the post FROM DIALOGUE, COVERSION
It seems to me that opening channels to the new president and the continued desire to dialogue with him about these issues within a context of non polarization and non condemnation might lead to better policy on his part. It did with Gov Richardson.
“A doctor friend tells me that over 50% of embryos in the ‘natural’ process fail to implant. He thinks it is a stretch that these failed embryos that fail to implant are fully human.”
Followed by “The figures I hear quoted are 60% to 80%”.
Will we next be hearing that Joey the Tipster gives the odds at 90%?
May I again be so impolite as to ask for a reference to a study confirming any of these figures? Say this for the Church: it is tiresomely exact and detailed in its statements. What is called by some liberation theologians, “the arid and dry scholastic discussions”.
“I think”, “I feel”, “I guess”, “I suppose” plus a token will get you a ride on the subway. Or perhaps the token will get you a brownie. But it will not cure the headache that rises from thinking about problems without preparation and study.
“Jean says: But by that reasoning, adopting a child created by a rapist, would be off-limits for fear that it would legitimize rapes. Or adopting abandoned children would be seen to abet abandoners. Or … you get my drift. ”
The difference would be that in your examples you’re not abetting any sinful social structures – there is no rape industry or abandonment industry.
I recall a number of years ago, the law in Germany was that women seeking abortions were required to first meet with a counselor from a Christian church (or perhaps it was a pro-life counselor, regardless of whether or not they were church-affiliated). The counselor would give the woman a certificate to prove that she had attended the session; the abortion could not be obtained unless the woman presented the certificate. Pope JPII ordered the Catholic Church to stop providing the counseling service(!) This because the counseling service was viewed as being integral to the abortion industry.
“a more liberal case is made within the Catholic tradition that favors human embryo cell research…”(under B, Views in the Middle)
Sister Margaret Farley may not believe, but the fact is, the Catholic Church teaches that Human Life begins at Conception. Any case that favors Human Embryo Cell Research is not a Catholic position.
Will we next be hearing that Joey the Tipster gives the odds at 90%?
May I again be so impolite as to ask for a reference to a study confirming any of these figures? Say this for the Church: it is tiresomely exact and detailed in its statements. What is called by some liberation theologians, “the arid and dry scholastic discussions”.
Gabriel,
You are being impolite, not to mention sarcastic. Don’t expect me to respond when you take that tone.
Gabriel,
A well known, Catholic doctor whose science and virtue I respect gave me the info that over 50& of embryos fail to implant.
What’s your data source? sarcasism ceased to be an agument in HS.
I wonder whether there is an actual, full argument contained in the conference paper.
The Cardinals quoted seem to be saying that:transferring an embryo to a woman’s uterus using technological, artificial, means is not a natural means to the good end of saving the embryo’s life. Therefore, such an act is immoral even though the end is good.
It seems to be typical of Vatican moralists to think that “non-natural” is the same thing as “unnatural”, and therefore is immoral.
Also implicit in this position is the very dubious assumption that there is only one good means to an end whi h is produced by mother nature, so to speak. It is dubious because medical practices of many artificial sorts (consider meds) are used all the time to help “nature” along, and there is not a peep from Rome..
I wonder whether there is an actual, full argument contained in the conference paper.
The Cardinals quoted seem to be saying that:transferring an embryo to a woman’s uterus using technological, artificial, means is not a natural means to the good end of saving the embryo’s life. Therefore, such an act is immoral even though the end is good.
It seems to be typical of Vatican moralists to think that “non-natural” is the same thing as “unnatural”, and therefore is immoral.
Also implicit in this position is the very dubious assumption that there is only one good means to an end whi h is produced by mother nature, so to speak. It is dubious because medical practices of many artificial sorts (consider meds) are used all the time to help “nature” along, and there is not a peep from Rome..
I wonder whether there is an actual, full argument contained in the conference paper.
The Cardinals quoted seem to be saying that:transferring an embryo to a woman’s uterus using technological, artificial, means is not a natural means to the good end of saving the embryo’s life. Therefore, such an act is immoral even though the end is good.
It seems to be typical of Vatican moralists to think that “non-natural” is the same thing as “unnatural”, and therefore is immoral.
Also implicit in this position is the very dubious assumption that there is only one good means to an end whi h is produced by mother nature, so to speak. It is dubious because medical practices of many artificial sorts (consider meds) are used all the time to help “nature” along, and there is not a peep from Rome..
MKSAP 13 (a medical review series for physicians) states that at least 30% of pregnancies detectable by ultrasensitive methods fail during implantation. I’m not an MD, but this estimate may be low, since it is so hard to measure when conception occurs. The chemical detected by ultrasensitive methods is not produced until 6 to 12 days after ovulation. If you want to check out one of the studies used to come up with this estimate: Wilcox, et al., NEJM 319:189-194, July 28, 1988.
Bob,
The source I was referring to is from The President’s Council on Bioethics, and is a transcript of a session titled Early Embryonic Development: An Up-to-Date Account, from January 16, 2003. Here is part:
Jean says: But by that reasoning, adopting a child created by a rapist, would be off-limits for fear that it would legitimize rapes. Or adopting abandoned children would be seen to abet abandoners. Or … you get my drift.
Then Jim says: The difference would be that in your examples you’re not abetting any sinful social structures – there is no rape industry or abandonment industry.
Then Jean wants to know: So the difference is that you can save a child produced by a sin, but not an embryo created by a sinful social structure? I fail to see how an embryo created under any circumstances should not, according to church teaching, be given a shot at being born.
But if frozen embryos are some kind of exception to that, what’s the remedy for women who volunteer to carry them? Abort them? I doubt that.
Doubtless I’m missing some sort of nuance here that would make my headache go away.
To TK: That’s hinky #1. Thanks for the reminder that God in his mercy may pardon me for those brownies, which I put on the big dessert table and then bugged out because the parish hall smells like fried perch, weak coffee and cigarette smoke wafting out of the smoking el.
Anyhoo, I just hope that all those brownies are eaten and don’t have to be frozen so that somebody a year from now has to determine whether they’re still viable comestibles.
Jean,
I have been thinking about your brownies for a few hours. I don’t think there will be any left. I sort of know how to cook but I don’t know how to bake. However, I do get to eat homemade brownies most Sundays. We have coffee and deserts after mass. A friend of mine brings brownies.
Ann,
It is not clear to me if the Vatican moralists consider me unnatural or non-natural. I sure am glad I didn’t wait around for them to decide.
Thanks, David.
I had forgotten your previous citation of Congressional testimony. The numbers may not be precise, but it is certain that many embryos do not implant.
Michael –
I knew an old Dominican who said he had found twenty-odd somewhat different meanings of “nature” and “natural” in Aquinas. So beware– they are treacherous words.
Ann,
Thanks for the warning. I agree words can be treacherous.