The supporters of embryonic stem cell research are usually quick to point out that the embryos being destroyed are generally the “leftovers” from in vitro fertilization, in which multiple embryos are created in a dish but relatively few are used. For those who believe that embryos are unique humans and deserve protection, this approach is monstrous.
At the other extreme, we have Nadya Suleman, recently famous for having octuplets, in addition to her six other children. The eight embryos were apparently leftover from previous in vitro treatments. Reluctant to have them destroyed, Ms. Suleman decided to have them implanted; she also refused medical advice to abort one or more. The result: Ms. Suleman, a single mother, has 14 children (the oldest is 7), and no visible means of support, except from her parents in whose house she lives.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28948599/
Further inspection suggests that this was not done out of a heartfelt conviction for the Right to Life, but rather a long-lived obsession with having kids. Something is definitely wrong with this picture. One is reminded of the well-meaning people who end up with houses full of cats which they have no possible means of taking care of properly.
There are thorny ethical issues aplenty here. Why did the doctors involved allow her to be impregnated with these eight embryos? But if she hadn’t had the babies, would it have been ethical to abort them or let the embryos be destroyed outside the womb? Should the government step in to determine how many children people should have? (In this case, it appears that some sort of government intervention is inevitable anyway–through financial assistance, if not state placement.) And should the media have been glamorizing multiple births all this time? (Sure, we’ve set records–but like the dog chasing the car, what do we do with it when we’ve got it?)
The key seems to be the in vitro fertilization. First of all, without that the chance of even having octuplets would have been negligible. There would have been no problem of what to do with the spare embryos, and there would not have been the question of whether to abort one or more of the babies. There would not have been the question of whether doctors had broken the Hippocratic rule of “First, do no harm.”
This is not meant as a wholesale condemnation of in vitro fertilization as such. It’s certainly not meant as an attack on the children produced by it–who, after all, had no say in the matter. (As far as that goes, the embryos that routinely get destroyed don’t have much say in the matter either.) However, this situation should act as a wake-up call that perhaps we need to come to terms with the implications of our technology and accept that there are limits on what we ought to be doing with it. It is perhaps possible to reconcile in vitro fertilization with pro-life philosophy, if the fertilization is attempted with only one or two eggs at a time–in short, no more than what the lady involved would be willing to carry full term. No leftover embryos, no abortions, no litters.
Yes, it’s more cumbersome that way; yes, it might be more expensive and less reliable. But wouldn’t it be more responsible? Yes, it might mean some parents don’t get children of their own–and I know this sounds cruel to would-be parents, but I can’t help that–but where is it written that we are guaranteed to get everything we want? Where is the person who says we can have it all (who isn’t trying to sell you something)? Isn’t that the philosophy that got us into this financial crisis, and produced the bizarre case of Nadya Suleman?
The epitaph of our era could yet turn out to be that line from Jurassic Park? “Your scientists were so concerned with whether they could, they never stopped to think whether they should“… or something like that.
Tags: child care, embryonic stem cell, government intervention, in vitro, Jurassic Park, media, medical ethics, octuplets
