On Monday, October 4, 2010, Professor Robert Edwards of the University of Cambridge won the Nobel prize in medicine for his ground-breaking work involving in-vitro fertilization, a project he has been working on in collaboration with the now deceased surgeon, Patrick Steptoe since the 1950s. In-vitro fertilization is a method “in which eggs are removed from a woman, fertilized outside her body and then implanted into the womb.” For many couples whom have unfortunately been determined infertile, this treatment has been especially monumental and integral in allowing them to reproduce. Infertility affects 10% of couples worldwide, so clearly a decent amount of people are affected by this treatment, not to mention the large percentage of people that are indirectly affected by this treatment.
In-vitro fertilization is still a relatively untrustworthy method; however, it is the only method that is available to couples that desperately want to have a child that shares both their DNA when the couple is not naturally able to due to infertility. There are some risks associated with in-vitro fertilization such as a higher chance of the child acquiring cerebral palsy, a disease that affects the cerebrum in the brain and results in limiting motor control, communication skills, cognition and sometimes even triggers epilepsy. In 1993, 13% of in-vitro fertilization procedures were successful. Since then, the rate has increased—but even so, it continues to be an unreliable source and is still in need of further research.
Personally, I think that this is an extraordinary and almost inhuman discovery in medicine. I’d imagine it to be a heartbreaking realization when a couple finds out that they’re incapable of reproducing. And thus, this brings hope to them. Although I’m awed by this treatment, I similarly believe that there is a reason that some couples are infertile and that the option of adoption should be considered first. Perhaps I would need to be put in that situation to make true judgment, but it just seems to me that with the existing population of the world and the number of children who are in need of a family, couples should consider adopting if they’re unable to conceive on their own.
Additionally, this issue becomes increasingly controversial when religion is brought into play because this method is unnatural and thus violates many beliefs on that front.
http://www.latimes.com/health/la-fgw-nobel-medicine-20101005,0,2977962,full.story
3 comments:
Although religious beliefs cause many people to be wary of IVF, there are other reasons to be concerned, most notably genetic screening of the embryos before they are implanted. There is a not entirely unjustified fear that allowing parents to select embryos for implantation based on the presence or absence of certain traits could lead to 'designer babies.’ Scientists are now able to run genetic tests on embryos before they are implanted to determine whether or not the embryos carry particular genes or genetic defects.
At the moment, this screening is intended for cases where there is a high chance of genetic defects, or where there is the possibility of an inherited disease. Couples would not implant embryos with severe genetic defects or potentially fatal inherited diseases. However, the question then becomes: at what point does something become a genetic disease. Some people are congenitally deaf or blind - should deaf or blind parents be allowed to use IVF to select for children who are also blind or deaf?
The selection of the sex of the implanted embryos can also be cause for concern. A procedure usually meant to prevent sex-linked genetic diseases is sometimes used to enforce cultural biases towards male children. When this choice is repeated by many couples, both in cases where IVF is used and in naturally occurring pregnancies, the result is an unbalanced birth rate, as can be seen in some Asian countries.
There are also strong concerns over the use of donated eggs and sperm, 'adopting' leftover embryos from other couples, and surrogacy, where a women will carry a child to term for another couple who cannot do so themselves. The underlying reason for the ethical issues that are raised in these situations is the ownership of human beings. In the case of IVF, a healthy child is seen as a possession to which every couple has a right, and which can be bought if the couple cannot have a child on their own. Frozen embryos are considered to be the property of the couple whose genetic material was used to create them. When you think about it, a couple who creates embryos for IVF is creating brand new human beings; human beings they own and have complete control over.
For many couples who struggle for infertility, their dreams of a child of their own may blind them to whether they desire a child as a person, or a possession.
In-vitro fertilization should not be considered evil. You say that this is almost an "inhuman discovery" in medicine, while it is truly an exemplar of the brilliant innovation that classifies this age. In reality, IVF allows humans, otherwise unable, to explore an integral aspect of their humanity, the ability to reproduce, a feat that several decades ago would have only been mentioned in science fiction books. Doing this with any sort of statistical success is not a concern for humankind, but a boon that should be cherished and refined to better allow everyone to explore this humanity. To say that this is unnatural while simultaneously saying that adoption is a better option is fallacious - certainly, for the reduction of population, this is true, but to deny the parents who actually want to have offspring of their own that right is tantamount to the inhumane Chinese law against having too many children. To fix the population crisis, look to those who accidentally become pregnant, not to those who actually desire pregnancy. Furthermore, the argument that some couples are somehow "meant" to be infertile is inhumane in itself! Saying that since a couple has issues delivering their chromosomal data to offspring, they should not have that right, is equivalent to the statement that since a child has issues breathing, he does not have the right to life. Just like with the child, there is now a medical venue that couples may take to work around their medical problems and reclaim a basic human right. IVF is not wrong.
However, the concept of IVF does carry with it hints of a controversy today's governments have shied away from addressing, and in-vitro fertilization, in my opinion, cannot be given a supporting argument without acknowledging these issues. Wielding such a powerful medical breakthrough, humans must be cognizant of the fact that they are manipulating legitimate human lives, and we must be careful to ensure that we do not begin treating them without respect, such as by using IVF to artificially modify humanity in a harmful or immoral way, or by realizing the embryos created by IVF only as "property." Worldwide lawmakers should take the initiative to push laws requiring the ethical treatment of potential humans to balance this. Still, the innovation of in-vitro fertilization should be considered an amazing and highly useful development, even in the light of the fact that it can be used for unethical purposes.
Post a Comment