In the United States, nearly 15 percent of couples are infertile which has led to the development of Assisted Reproductive Technologies (ART). ART is mind-boggling technology that has a whole range of advances, from providing couples with fertility treatments to genetically profiling embryos (Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis – PGD). However, with reproductive technologies there are countless ethical concerns and moral controversies that arise.
In Vitro Fertilization (IVF)
The first successful IVF took place in 1978 in Britain. IVF is an ART that provides reproductive endocrinologists the ability to assist couples with infertility. In IVF, the egg and sperm are extracted, fertilized, and inserted back into the mothers uterus. IVF is the most effective form of ART. Many successful transfers have taken place; but as it involves the creation of life and the germ-line, many ethical considerations are to be made by bioethicists, lawyers, religious leaders, etc.
IVF and all other ARTs are timely and very costly causing ethicists to conclude that it will create a significant societal gap amongst the rich and poor. In the US, the average couple spends nearly $20,000 and if more cycles are needed it’s an additional $7,000, and this is all out of pocket money as insurance in the US doesn’t cover IVF treatment.
The Catholic Church deems fertility treatments immoral as it is replacing the procreative act of marriage with a laboratory procedure. As many embryos are taken from the mother and mixed with the sperm, life is created and then deliberately discarded as only few show promise in surviving; the remaining embryos get inserted into the womb. Also, religions that see conception as the start of life are against IVF as conception is happening in a laboratory which is not natural, and is not what God intended.
Then with IVF comes gestational carriers/surrogacy, where a woman agrees to carry the embryo of parents who cannot carry the child to term. IVF is used to create the embryo and is then inserted in the surrogate – instead of the mother. The genetic parents are paying the surrogate to carry their child – this can be seen as a form of “child selling” or the “sale of parental rights”. Now instead of two parents. there over three or even four: the genetic mother, genetic father, gestational mother and gestational mother’s spouse; and if something were to happen to any of them, there would be confusion to whom the child belongs to. Or in surrogacy where the carrier provides her own egg for the couple, what if she wants to keep the child? There are many cases that arise and judges look at who initiated the conception which usually is the couple who hired a surrogate.
There are many factors that play when considering fertility treatment options and engineers, scientists and researchers are constantly seeking a way to make it affordable, accessible and applicable for various faiths.
In Vitro Gametogenesis (IVG)
In Vitro Gametogenesis is the new state-of-the-art ART. A technology that will use the skin or blood cells – either of a man or woman – to reverse engineer them using induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSC) to revert the cell back to its initial embryonic stage. From the embryonic stage, the cell has the capabilities of turning into any cell as it is undifferentiated now. It is adapted into either a sperm or egg cell allowing for the conception of an embryo.
As ultramodern and mind-bending as that sounds, on October 17th, 2012 biologist Katsuhiko Hayashi of Kyushu University in Japan led a team of researchers and used IVG to make gametes from the skin cells of adult female mice which were then implanted into the mice and they gave birth to healthy babies. And soon IVG will be used for humans. Jeanne Loring of the Scripps Research Institute said, “I wouldn’t be surprised if it was five years, and I wouldn’t be surprised if it was 25 years”. But of course, the human cell is much more complicated than that of a mouse.
IVG can be incredibly beneficial for endangered animal species. The orangutan is critically endangered and if there are only female orangutans left, there would be no way to reproduce. But with IVG zoologists would be prepared to create the sperm gametes and save the species from extinction.
Once and if IVG becomes available for the public, same sex couples who aspire for a child will be able to use the technology to conceive a biological child to both parents. It will allow for single parents to have a child without the necessity of donor gametes. There are endless applications of IVG, whether ethical or not, those arguments are yet to come.
As IVG has not reached the human trial stage, there have been very few reports of ethicists speaking on the topic. But it can be inferred that as with IVF, the cost will be great causing economic disparity. The main one, tinkering with the biology of human beings. With a religious leader’s point of view, God created man and woman and gave them specific mechanisms to conceive a child. With IVG we would be eliminating the need for the opposite sex and marriage all together, which is not what God intends.
There are many layers of complicated bioengineering and ethical variables that are needed for IVG to reach humans and various other animals as not only would it change the way babies can be created but it alters with embryonic stem cells which has been up for ethical debate for decades.
Embryonic Stem Cells
The use of embryonic stem cells are common in research for tissue engineering and regenerative medicine as they have the ability to generate into any cell, tissue or organ. For example, we could use embryonic stem cells to build a viable liver in a lab. But with any development that can alter human beings, the question of whether it is ethical or not rises.
As the stem cells are undifferentiated the cells are viable in all parts of the body, giving them the potential to help cure many diseases. Morally, one would find saving someone’s life the right thing to do, but since these cells are extracted from the human embryo in the process of developing, there is an ethical debate on whether or not the cells should be taken from the mother’s uterus as it destroys the blastocyst – one week old embryo. But in August of 2005, scientists at Harvard University discovered that there is an alternative to using fertilized embryos, induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSC) – which is what is being used for IVG. But, iPCS is still undergoing research and trials and has not been used on human cells yet. As there is no fertilized embryo dying, this positively responds to the pro-life objections.
Scientists (where it is legal) are continuing research with embryonic stem cells. With the destruction of the blastocyst, pro-lifers claim it to be the murder of human life as they believe life begins at conception. This is why embryonic stem cell research has been banned by some states and other countries and was also banned in the United States under the Bush administration in 2001 until President Barack Obama lifted the ban in 2009. Bush’s ban did not stop the research done by private and state funded institutions.
Decisions are not made lightly by scientists, researchers, and women who donate their eggs as they have serious ethical and moral implications. The opposition argues that the funding should go into adult stem cell research as there is much to be explored there, thus evading the moral issues of the use of human embryos.
