People in the
United States who want to have children have been able to purchase donated
sperm and eggs separately for some time, but the relatively recent practice of
selling embryos introduces new issues. Recently, a fertility clinic in Davis,
CA began combining donor eggs and sperm to create embryos, which can then be
used in fertility treatments for a price tag of $9,800 for a pregnancy, a much
cheaper price than what it costs to become pregnant via traditional in vitro
fertilization (IVF). The clinic is able to offer the treatment at a lower cost
because it creates a batch of embryos from a single sperm and single egg donor
together, and then sells the embryos to multiple patients. Couples who opt for
this method of fertility treatment would have no genetic relation to their
children.
For some time,
couples have been able to adopt embryos left over from other couples' IVF
treatments in a process known as "embryo donation." But in these
cases, embryos are created with the initial intent of being used by a specific
couple seeking fertility treatment, whereas, in the case of the Davis
fertility-clinic, embryos are created for the explicit purpose of selling them.
Andrew Vorzimer, a fertility lawyer in Los Angeles, has expressed his
disapproval for this new practice, describing it as a commodification of
children.
However,
others, such as I. Glenn Cohen, an assistant professor and co-director of the
Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology and Bioethics at
Harvard Law School, contends that it is an open debate whether this new
practice introduces new ethical ground. Cohen notes that because the purchase
of sperm and egg is already, for the most part, socially accepted, it is not
clear whether the ethical issues introduced here are all that different. To put
it bluntly, if it is okay to buy the individual components, why should it be
any different to buy the final product?
While my own
personal opinions are mixed on this issue, I think that this statement that Cohen
raises about the ambiguity of any difference existing between sperm and egg
sales and embryo sales is wrong. The blunt question posed above will have different
answers for different people depending on their beliefs.
One huge
controversy that is still yet to be solved when discussing embryo ethics is the
time at which the moral status of a person applies in one’s life. Some contend
that it is when fertilization begins, others contend that it is when the first
signs of a nervous system start to form, and still others argue for the stage
of implantation, from which life will continue to develop on its own. The
reason for this relevance is that, for example, when Vorzimer argues that this
new practice is a commodification of children,
he is indirectly stating that an embryo is a child, namely that life begins at
fertilization. In contrast, Cohen would most likely hold a different opinion of
when the moral status of a person applies during the pre-birth stages because
he sees no difference in the individual components and the final product. And
because this debate of when personhood starts is so controversial and absent of
a clear answer, I expect the same stagnant deadlock in this debate of whether
the fertility clinic is Davis is doing a morally permissible favor or
abomination to society.
Source:
http://www.foxnews.com/health/2013/04/11/made-to-order-embryos-create-new-legal-issues/
1 comment:
I quite agree with Glenn Cohen. In my opinion, there is hardly any ethical difference between selling eggs and sperms separately or selling a complete zygote. And the reason I believe so is because the end result is much the same. A new life is created after nine months of pregnancy; in the former case, half the genetic make up of this new life comes from a third party and in the latter case, complete genetic make up of this new life comes from a third party. The latter practice does not cause any additional harm to the couple or the donors, and as far as the not-yet-born new life is concerned, it spends its first nine months in the same womb regardless of the method of fertility. Hence, if the former is ethically permissible, then so must be the latter.
As you've described in your blog, many people tend to believe that it is morally wrong to sell life, and because a subset of them believe that a zygote is a life, what's happening in the Davis fertility-clinic is also morally wrong. According to me, it is indeed impossible to draw a clear line to divide human development into two phases, one in which the thing that is developing is not a life and another in which it is, simply because humans are essentially a large ball of millions of cells interacting with one another. And these cells are ultimately made up of atoms and molecules. It's just that in the initial stages, the number of cells or the amount of chemicals is less and in the later stages, the number of cells or the amount of chemicals is more. And because the increase in the number of cells or the amount of chemicals is gradual and not abrupt, the characteristics exhibited by the developing individual also change gradually and not abruptly. This makes it even more difficult to reach a clear cut line that every person, or even every biologist, in this world would agree upon.
Hence, I don't think trying to draw a line is the smartest way to tackle the problem of the novel fertility techniques offered at the Davis fertility-clinic. This urge to draw a line is just another representation of the mere reluctance to change of a risk-averse society, much like the way heart transplants, during their initial stages, were thought to devalue the soul of the patient. I believe that as long as the benefits of legalized selling of zygotes outweigh the costs, this practice should be considered morally and ethically permissible.
Post a Comment