On Reading Decision Points - Embryonic Adoption

One of the first things President Bush did, much like one of the first things President Obama did, was to tackle the question of federally funding embryonic stem cell research. His book outlines his thought process and all the input he tried to receive along the way. In the end, his decision was to award grants to scientists researching embryonic stem cell lines that were already in place but to use the rest of the grants on non-embryonic stem cell research - research which paid off with better and more ethical results than embryonic stem cell research.

I disagree with his final decision, although I appreciate that he tried to create a decision that would be bipartisan but respect his morals - including the sacredness of human life. I have two problems:
1. I don't think that it is the government's job to fund ANY kind of stem cell research or other scientific project. I think that the funding of science should be private, especially as scientific breakthroughs tend to have just as much potential return as any other investment.
2. One danger of researching new cures using embryonic stem cells is the potential for success. I am surprised that, at least in his book, the president did not seek input on what would happen if a scientific breakthrough was made using embryonic stem cells. It is so much easier to accept disease when there is no cure, but what about when the cure is unethical? Why bother researching using embryonic stem cells if, using the president's morality as well as my own, once a breakthrough is reached, no more embryos are allowed to be killed in order to advance the cure? It really seems both illogical and unethical to research along lines that may not yield results. Under this line of reasoning alone, I would create an all-out ban on embryonic stem cell research, federally funded or not.

But what stuck out in the President's autobiography about his stem cell research was his discovery of an agency that placed embryos left over after In-Vitro Fertilization (IVF) procedures with a new family. These embryos would otherwise be frozen forever or used for stem cell research. Children adopted such are called "snowflakes." Although I applaud these efforts ethically, I find myself confused at these proceedings.

First of all, we must understand that IVF is not considered a life-affirming method of becoming pregnant. However, for some the draw to have what they want, when they want it, becomes too much. There is a biological desire in us all to see our genes passed on, and when we find we cannot do it naturally, we seek alternative methods. Another reason for wanting IVF I will discuss later.

However, IVF is an expensive and dangerous process - dangerous for the babies. Let's say a doctor fertilizes 12 embryos. He may then implant six in a woman's uterus, leaving six left over to be frozen, adopted, or used in scientific research. (Left-over embryos may be kept if the parents want a second or third child). The chances of these embryos growing into fetuses and completing a healthy pregnancy are low. Many women experience pregnancies outside of IVF in which an egg is fertilized but does not implant. These short-lived pregnancies are fairly common and may be as high as 50%. It stands to reason that IVF pregnancies may suffer a similar rate of failure to implant.

Let's say that three embryos implant. Many times, these three embryos grow into healthy babies - and that is one reason for the sudden upswing in multiple births I have noticed recently. However, if too many implant - perhaps all six - a doctor may recommend terminating a few of the babies. The recommendation is made both for the health of the mother, the safety of the other babies, and the sanity of the parents who may be facing raising six children.

This is why IVF is such a controversial procedure. It attacks natural life at every turn. If you believe, as I do, that life begins at conception, then you can see how betwen 50% and 75% of the embryos conceived are discarded at the parent's whim.

Ethically, I don't know the response for adopting someone else's embryos. I believe that, expensive as each procedure is, if one or two embryos were implanted in the adoptive mother, this would not create the need for abortion, nor would endanger the embryos. Therefore, I can see it being ethical. On the other hand, one could say that saving the frozen embryos until science may be able to birth them without further endangering their health (more than a natural pregnancy would) may be the most ethical decision. Given a choice between destruction for scientific research and loving adoption, the second choice is glaringly more ethical.

But ethics aside, I find the very idea of adopting someone's embryos...odd. First of all, if a parent is looking into adoption, why not adopt one of the millions of born babies or fetuses around the world? By this I mean a child that is either in more immediate danger of abortion or who is living in abject poverty.

Of course I already know some objections. Adoption is a long, expensive, and potentially painful process (if birth parents choose their mind). While IVF is also expensive, it may be considered by couples to be a "more sure" thing. Further, if they are pro-life and believe life begins at conception, then the value of a child will not be based on how far he or she is along in fetal development. (By the way, one of the miracles of life is that a baby's gender, along with all his genetic coding, is determined on the day of conception - knowing that our unborn babies have genders, even if we cannot determine them yet, should be just one more reason to support the belief that life begins at conception).

But another reason I find this odd is that couples who participate in IVF are the exact opposite of your typical adopting mother. Most mothers who place their child with adoptive parents are unwed, young, or financially incapable of raising a child. Parents who participate in IVF are generally married (or couples, in the case of homosexuals) and have the financial means to raise a child, as evidenced at the very least by their ability to pay for the procedure.

Many pregnant women shun the idea of placing their child for adoption because of the lack of control. They don't put it that way, but it comes down to that. Parents have a natural love for their children, and it is hard to give one away, even if you know it is best for the child. However, giving away an embryo created during IVF is completely opposite this philosophy. It represents having the means and ability to care for a child, but not the desire. It is almost a, "Whatever," attitude towards the adoptive parents, "Sure, you can have my child. I'm not going to use it."

I did think of one major reason why a genetic parent might choose to place his or her embryo for adoption. When a homosexual couple or couple who cannot conceive because of a problem with one person's gamete, the embryo created uses a sperm or egg donor and only the original sperm or egg from one parent. As such, all embryos created are only "half" the couple's. It seems easier to give away a child created by this method if only one parent was actually involved in the creation of him or her.

Don't get me wrong, I don't fault the adoptive parents for their route here, but it seems a little sick of the genetic parents. And I think the genetic parents were very good to make the choice to adopt - rather than try to justify the killing of the embryo "in the name of science." It is a better choice to save the child's life.

Of course, down the road, if the parents want another child, will they have to engaged in a new round of IVF, having given away their remaining embryos?

I think this is a practice that is just interesting to think about - it calls to mind so many questions, some of which I have not written out. IVF in general can verge on the creepy, with the large potential for destruction of life and the "test tube baby" feel. Adding the additional prospect of adopting an embryo makes the process even more interesting to the amateur bioethicist.