In Vitro Fertilization

In Vitro Fertilization:

Ethics and the American Dream

James Truslow Adams, in his book The Epic of America, which was written in 1931, stated that the American dream is:

That dream of a land in which life should be better and richer and fuller for everyone, with opportunity for each according to ability or achievement...It is not a dream of motor cars and high wages merely, but a dream of social order in which each man and each woman shall be able to attain to the fullest stature of which they are innately capable, and be recognized by others for what they are, regardless of the fortuitous circumstances of birth or position." (Adams, 1931, p.214-215)

In the last century, many Americans have developed their perception of the "American Dream." This vision usually involves a house with a white picket fence, two and a half children and a dog. While some of this is readily attainable, but the two and a half children aren't always. More and more, women are choosing the house with the picket fence first and then eventually getting around to the two and a half children, thus decreasing their chances of having them. This, along with other infertility issues, has introduced the science of In Vitro Fertilization (IVF); however, this fertility fix has also brought its fair share of controversial concerns. This paper will discuss the moral (Catholic specific) and ethical issues surrounding IVF and its impact on the world's future.

IVF is a subset of Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) in which a woman's egg is fertilized outside of the woman's uterus. Once the sperm has fertilized the egg, it is placed in the woman's uterus to take hold on the uterine wall and hopefully develop into a baby. Recent estimates place the infertility level in the United States at 6.1 million people, representing 10% of reproductive age Americans (Jeffries).

IVF poses a moral dilemma: survival of the fittest vs. Catholic doctrine. To Catholics, each fertilized egg represents a life. By putting many fertilized eggs into the uterus, hoping that one will survive, many, if not all, will be sacrificed. This dilemma is the Catholic Church's primary concern with IVF and highlights the divide between the Church and the medical community: at what point is life conceived. From a health care provider's stand point, a fertilized egg is not a child or a life for that matter. The life of a baby starts when the first breath is taken. While the Catholic Church may feel that a fertilized egg is a life, the medical community does not. Given the logic from both sides, is sacrificing fertilized eggs morally correct? The subjective nature of this question is only answerable by the parties involved, thus making the morality of this issue a moot point (Ladaria, 2008).

It is interesting to note that the Catholic Church is not simply an organization of outdated thinkers, but through research on this topic revealed that the Catholic Church is not against all ART methods. If a woman is having trouble conceiving, the Vatican's stance is as follows:

Techniques which act as an aid to the conjugal act and its fertility are permitted. In such procedures, the medical intervention respects the dignity of persons when it seeks to assist the conjugal act either in order to facilitate its performance or in order to enable it to achieve its objective once it has been normally performed (Regarding the Instruction Dignita Personae).

Based on this statement, if life can be created using normal "conjugal" acts, with the assistance of medicine, the sanctity of life is preserved and effectively, the child created from such act is of God's divine plan. This excerpt reveals that it is morally sound to utilize ART methods, while still respecting life, even in the form of a fertilized egg (Ladaria, 2008).

It is widely held that people are generous by their nature. For instance, the richest individuals in the United States (i.e. Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, etc.) have pledged a sizable chunk of their wealth to charity upon their death (Blackburn). Such generosity highlights how people like to give, when they have the means, to people that are wanting. Apply the notion that people are generous to this topic and one can derive that doctors and health care providers have a generosity to provide services for those that want a child but can't. Of course they are paid handsomely for this generosity, but they find it hard to see a woman forfeit the opportunity to raise a family due to correctable medical condition. After all, husbands and wives usually marry with the intent of starting a family; why would anyone want to deprive them of a baby if the technology is readily available to allow them?

However, is it ethically correct to provide a means that Mother Nature has otherwise denied? If you visit any IVF provider's website, it is easy to see that the doctors believe they are providing a value added service that has no consequence other than an intended baby. Moreover, while researching this paper, it was determined that information is not readily available to determine the motivations of IVF doctors. One can then assume that society, or at least part of it, has already accepted the ethical ramifications of this topic and deemed them acceptable. Placing any moral issues aside, ethically there is no substantial claim denying or contradicting a doctor's choice to offer