I want to encourage those who haven’t read In Vitro Fertilization: Opening a Pandora Box (Part 1) to click on the link and read it first.

In this blog entry I am going to discuss the remaining ethical issues of IVF and answer the big question: Is there a way in which we can use IVF ethically and if, how? It has already been established in the previous blog entry that the normal procedure of IVF undoubtedly results in the killing of human life by discarding zygotes or embryos and is therefore unethical. There is however a lot of other ethical issues surrounding IVF that need some careful reasoning and examination.

It is important to note that our three premises still stand. Firstly, all life starts at conception. Secondly, the zygote (fertilized egg cell) is a human being with all its human rights. Thirdly, that we consider these truths to be universal. If you do not agree with these points of view, you do not need to read any further, because the arguments will stand or fall on these points. With that said we can proceed to the first ethical issue.

Freezing Embryos

The freezing of embryos poses serious ethical concerns. I want to start by giving you a staggering fact. At the moment there are more than 600 000 frozen embryos in America. In other words, we currently have 600 000 souls on ice. Is it ethically sound to freeze a human being and keep it from developing? If we truly see the embryo as a person with rights it should be unambiguous to see that it is ethically impermissible to freeze an embryo. Other difficult questions resulting from freezing the embryos are – what happens to the embryos when the mother dies, the couple cannot afford IVF any further, the couple do not want any more children or when the couple divorces? None of these situations can ultimately be prevented and these situations will cause the freezed embryos to be killed.

Is there a way in which we can use IVF ethically and if, how?

I believe there are only two ways in which we can prevent the killing of embryos during the process of IVF, but does that make it ethical?

The first way is to allow all the 10 to 12 embryos to implant into the mother’s uterus. That way we know for sure that no external conditions, as mentioned before, are going to cause embryos to be killed. The problem, however, is that now we are allowing a potentially dangerous situation to develop for both the mother and the babies if too high many embryos implant. The more embryos that implant into the uterus the higher the risk of the pregnancy and the likelihood of complications and death. We might end up having to take one human life to save another human life. For this very reason, the normal protocol of IVF only allows 2-4 embryos to implant. It should be clear to you that allowing all the embryos to implant is not an ethical solution to our problem, for it might do exactly that which we are trying to avoid – the killing of embryos, and as a complication, might even endanger the mother’s life.

The second way is to only fertilize one or two egg cells and allow them to implant into the uterus. Now to be honest, this is the most ethical way to use IVF. However, there are some major objections. Although not these objections are on the grounds of ethics, they should still be considered.

The first one is the fact that the chance of a successful live birth will now decrease immensely and can be anywhere between only 5-10%. Because of this low success rate the need for more treatment cycles will necessarily increase as will the financial burden on the couple. Every couple who has ever undergone IVF will testify to the high emotional stress involved and the strain on their relationship. What will the emotional cost be, considered the low success rate and the need for more treatment cycles? Apart from the financial and emotional cost, there are also the physical costs to consider. The increased risk of ovarian cancer, ovarian hyper stimulation syndrome and other risks after implantation, like possible birth defects. With that in mind, can the small chance of a successful outcome outweigh all the costs? What is the cost-benefit then? Some of you may still think it is worth the cost.

With this said there is the second objection. In our society, the gift of your own biological child is something that most couples long for. It is natural and understandable for couples struggling with infertility to also want their own biological child. However, it can become objectionable when the struggle for a biological child becomes an obsession that outweighs all the ethical questions already raised and the goal for an own biological child is more important than having a child you could love, care and parent. It begs the question, when does the struggle for your own biological child become an obsession in the light of 132 million orphans worldwide? That however is an issue you should decide for yourself.

The final ethical issue is the way in which IVF technology was discovered and is being developed and improved today. A few weeks ago, I asked a very dear friend of mine if it is ethical for medical practitioners to use IVF technology which was discovered by killing and experimenting on human lives. He responded by giving me the following analogy:

Let’s say the Nazi’s developed a cancer treatment during WWII by killing or experimenting on Jews. What will be the most ethical thing to do with the cancer treatment today? Will it be to use it to treat millions of cancer patients and save their lives or will it be to not use it at all because it was discovered unethically?

My answer was undoubtedly that we should treat the cancer patients. For a few days, this analogy kept my mind at peace and I was persuaded that we should use IVF.

However, IVF technology is not the same as cancer treatment because it does not cure a life-threatening illness. It is also not just a once off discovery. Today around the world hundreds and thousands of human lives are killed and experimented on in the development and improvement of IVF. Therefore, I would like to change and correct the analogy.

Let’s say the Nazi’s developed a way in which they could culture a limb for people without it by experimenting on and killing Jews during WWII. And they are currently still busy killing and experimenting on Jews to improve the culturing of limbs. What will be the most ethical thing to do with the technology of culturing limbs today? Will it be to use it to enhance millions of lives or will it be not to use it at all because it is currently the result of thousands of deaths and experimentations on humans?

Are we fine using medical technology that causes us to indirectly support the killing of thousands of human lives? I want you to really think of that question and the impact of your possible answer

Now is there no hope for couples struggling with infertility? No, we currently have a program called Naprotechnology which looks very promising and the unconditional love of adoption.

“Having a moral heartbeat for humanity.”

If you found this blog entry interesting, thought-provoking and informative share it with friends.