On Abandoned Embryos

An intrinsic evil is an evil which can never be justified.

Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine justifies “financial incentives” for egg donation. In 2000, amounts of $3,360 – $4,200 per donor cycle were recommended, with payments of >$5,000 requiring justification (to whom?) and >$10,000 being “inappropriate.” In the same paper, however, the authors note that advertisements regularly appear in print and on the web offering over $50,000 to “women with specific physical and intellectual attributes.” Although not stated in the cited article, internet searches reveal that this is often translated as “attractive college girls with high SAT scores.” See “Financial Incentives in Recruitment of Oocyte Donors,” in Fertility and Sterility, 74.2 (August 2000): 216-220.

National Academy of Sciences, Guidelines for Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research, (Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Sciences, 2005), notes that cash payments beyond “direct expenses” should not be made to women who undergo oocyte harvest where the eggs will be used for research. See Recommendation 16, p. 87. However, the Guidelines are silent regarding oocytes donated for embryo creation for “clinical purposes.” It is also unclear as to exactly what constitutes a “direct expense.”

“In vitro” = “in the glass,” thus, in vitro fertilization is “artificial fertilization.” In contrast, your author and probably most of the people reading this were conceived “in vivo”, “in life.”

Cf. 2,000 years of Church teaching, as summarized in paragraph 2270 of The Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd ed. (Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1997). This is true notwithstanding the sad fact that, as I write these words, Cardinal Martini is in the news, denying this settled teaching. (“Life Doesn't Start at Conception, but after Says Cardinal Martini in Dialogue with Bioethicist,” Catholic News Agency, April 20, 2006, http://www.catholicnewsagency.com).

Guidelines, Recommendation 3(c)(i), p. 57. Brief discussion on p. 55.

United Kingdom law, Human Fertilization and Embryology Act 1990. The same Act stipulates that cryopreserved embryos must be destroyed after five years. Cited in Berkman J. “Gestating the Embryos of Others,” National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly 3.2 (Summer 2003): 309–329.

Occasionally, as late as day 6 of embryonic life. This general synopsis of the clinical aspects of ART is taken from Danforth's Obstetrics and Gynecology, eds. Scott J.R. , 9th ed. (Philadelphia: Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins, 2003), ch. 39, “Assisted Reproductive Technology.”

Danforth's Obstetrics and Gynecology, The embryos are examined under a dissecting microscope and the grading is based on the number and uniformity of the cells, amount of fragmentation, and rate of division. These factors are predictors as to the likelihood that the embryo will survive and grow. This is a morphological analysis. In addition, the embryos might undergo genetic analysis looking for specific monogenic states such as cystic fibrosis.

Danforth's Obstetrics and Gynecology, p. 709.

Centers for Disease Control, Dept. of Health and Human Services, 2003 Assisted Reproductive Technology Report, http://www.cdc.gov/ART/ART2003/index.html. See 2003 National Summary Table. This is the most recent data reported.

Centers for Disease Control, Dept. of Health and Human Services, 2003 Assisted Reproductive Technology Report, http://www.cdc.gov/ART/ART2003/index.html. See 2003 National Summary Table. This is the most recent data reported.

2003 Assisted Reproductive Technology Report, Varies by age, with women under 35 having rates approaching 40%; older women have lower rates. Similar numbers are reported in Scott, et al., Danforth's Obstetrics and Gynecology, cited above, page 709.

Lejeune Jerome Dr. The Concentration Can (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1992), Dr. Lejeune was a world famous French geneticist who, among other things, isolated the genetic defect underlying Down Syndrome (Trisomy 21). He was also a devout Catholic who wrote and argued for pro-life issues. This book contains his testimony regarding a frozen abandoned embryo in a court case in Tennessee. When asked by the media why he, a world famous geneticist, would travel a third of the way around the world at his own expense to testify in someplace called Marysville, he replied, “If the judgment of Solomon, which is pronounced once every three thousand years, occurs during your lifetime, it's worth a detour.” With the greatest humility I borrow his title for this little section; it was his term for the embryos in the freezer.

“Cryopreserved Embryos in the United States and Their Availability for Research,” Fertility and Sterility 79.5 (May 2003): 1063–1069. This is the number that is most frequently reported in the media. The paper derived its data from the 430 ART clinics in the U.S.

“Cryopreserved Embryos in the United States and Their Availability for Research,” Fertility and Sterility 79.5 (May 2003): 1063–1069. This is the number that is most frequently reported in the media. The paper derived its data from the 430 ART clinics in the U.S.

Saletan William “Leave No Embryo Behind: The Coming War Over In Vitro Fertilization,” June 3, 2005, http://www.slate.com.

“Cryopreserved Embryos”, Table 1. I merely added together the numbers in the “Donation” and “Other” categories.

Berkman J. “Gestating the Embryos of Others,” National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly 3.2 (Summer 2003): 309–329. See footnotes 4&5. Also discussed in Chapter 9, “Technological Reproduction of Human Life” in J.A. Leies et al, Handbook on Critical Life Issues, 3rd ed. (Boston: The National Catholic Bioethics Center, 2004), 105.

For this discussion of terminology, I am generally following Berkman, “Gestating the Embryos of Others.”

Tonti-Filippini N. “The Embryo Rescue Debate,” National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly 3.1 (Spring 2003): 111–137.

Berkman “Gestating the Embryos of Others.” “Could There Ever be an Exception?” See the hypothetical example on p. 318.

Berkman , The example used is that described by Germain Grisez in his 1997 publication, “Should a Woman Try to Bear Her Dead Sister's Embryos?” in The Way of the Lord Jesus, vol. 3, Difficult Moral Questions (Chicago: Franciscan Press, 1997). The situation was that of a young, single, Catholic woman, opposed to IVF as well as surrogacy and all forms of artificial reproduction as part of her general formation of conscience, whose older sister committed suicide, leaving an embryo in cryopreservation. The young woman wondered whether she was in accord with Church teaching if she gestated that embryo and, upon its birth, gave it up for adoption.

May W.E. Catholic Bioethics and the Gift of Human Life (Huntington, IN: Our Sunday Visitor Publishing Division, OSV Inc., 2000), 107.

Berkman “Gestating the Embryos of Others,” 323. This will be discussed more below.

Of course, the pregnancy doesn't just “occur,” the woman has to go to great lengths to get it to happen. I'm not trying to strongly argue for the use of double effect here, I'm just floating it as a possible approach to the problem.

Berkman “Gestating the Embryos of Others,” 328.

Caplan A. “The Problem with Embryo ‘Adoption’: Why Is the Government Giving Money to ‘Snowflakes’?” MSNBC.com commentary, June 24, 2003, http://www.msnbc.msn.com. Dr. Caplan is the Director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania, and he takes great umbrage at (1) the use of the term “adoption”, and (2) the fact that the DHHS gave a grant of about $1 M to a private organization known as Snowflakes, which I'll discuss in more detail below. Concerning the word “adoption”, his complaint is that it serves to legitimize the status of the unborn child. Concerning the money, his complaint is that the money was donated for ideology, not medicine. In other words, the government's million bucks only produced 16 babies, which clearly isn't cost effective. Not stated in his article is the fact that Planned Parenthood receives hundreds of millions of dollars from our government each year to assist Planned Parenthood with performing tens of thousands of abortions. Abortion is far more cost effective.

Cunningham P. “Embryo Adoption or Embryo Donation?: The Distinction and Its Implications,” The Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity, April 17, 2003, http://www.cbhd.org.

Cunningham P. “Embryo Adoption or Embryo Donation?: The Distinction and Its Implications,” The Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity, April 17, 2003, http://www.cbhd.org.

May, Catholic Bioethics, 107.

Catholic Bioethics, 100.

Watt H. “A Brief Defense of Frozen Embryo Adoption,” National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly 1.2 (Summer 2001): 151–154. Emphasis in the original. Dr. Watt in no way questions the settled truth that the sex act outside of marriage is intrinsically evil. That the “genetic mother” in her musing would only licitly become such within the confines of marriage is implicit in her statement.

Watt H. “A Brief Defense of Frozen Embryo Adoption,” National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly 1.2 (Summer 2001): 151–154. Emphasis in the original. Dr. Watt in no way questions the settled truth that the sex act outside of marriage is intrinsically evil. That the “genetic mother” in her musing would only licitly become such within the confines of marriage is implicit in her statement.

May, Catholic Bioethics, 104ff. See also May W. , “The Morality of ‘Rescuing’ Frozen Embryos,” in What Is Man, O Lord? The Human Person in a Biotech Age, ed. Furton E. (Boston: National Catholic Bioethics Center, 2002).

The principal reason St. Thomas gave in his argument regarding the intrinsically evil nature of fornication is that it makes babies out of wedlock, depriving them of the proper parenting that they are owed. Discussed in Endnote 3 of Chapter 3, “Generating Human Life” in May, Catholic Bioethics.

Donum Vitae (Boston: Pauline Books and Media, 1987).

Donum Vitae, 11, 4. The argument from Donum Vitae regarding the (putatively) intrinsically illicit nature of embryo transfer, as well as the argument that the woman who adopts an embryo is, in fact, acting as a surrogate (and surrogacy is condemned by Donum Vitae) is presented primarily by Msgr. W. Smith in his article, “Rescue the Frozen?” Homiletic and Pastoral Review 96.1 (October 1995): 72-74. 1 am, however, using May's summary found in both Catholic Bioethics (Chapter 3) and What is Man, O Lord? (“The Morality of ‘Rescuing’ Frozen Embryos.” The counterarguments to Smith are developed by, in addition to May himself, G. Grisez (Difficult Moral Questions) and Surtees G. (“Adoption of Frozen Embryos” Homiletic and Pastoral Review 96 (August-September 1996): 8–9), and are summarized in May.

Grisez Difficult Moral Questions, footnote 188.

This point is argued primarily (albeit with differing emphases in developing their points) by Tonti-Filippini, “The Embryo Rescue Debate”; and Geach M. “Rescuing Frozen Embryos,” in Furton, What is Man, O Lord, 217–230.

Nightlight Christian Adoptions, 801 East Chapman Ave. Suite 106, Fullerton, CA 92831 (714) 278-1020. This information is found at their website, http://www.nightlight.org/snowflakeadoption.html. Note that this is an adoption agency, not an IVF clinic. They don't perform the procedures. However, they do assist in finding and making arrangements with a clinic which does perform the procedure.

See Tonti-Filippini, “The Embryo Rescue Debate.” The argument here is that, tragically, the only licit solution to this mess is to thaw and rehydrate the embryos, returning them to their living state, baptize them, and allow them to die.

As I am preparing this piece, in my mailbox appears the latest National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly devoted entirely to: Chimeras and Hybrids! The future is now.