Complicated IVF situation

[JCs320]

Hello all,

There is a sticky situation at hand for a certain person. There is a woman that had cancer. The chemo and radiation she received caused her to become sterile. Prior to the radiation treatment and becoming sterile she had an IVF with her ex-husband, now there are three frozen embryos. The question is: what does she do with the embryos, because she cannot become pregnant. She is paying $100 a month to keep them frozen. She does not want surrogate pregnancy. She has been re-married to someone else. She claims to be Catholic.

Does the Church have an answer to this? I asked a Catholic bio-ethicist and he basically said “embryo adoption” would be the answer. If need be I will copy and paste his entire response.

Thank you, God bless!

 

[1ke]

It is only complicated because she committed a grave evil in the first place-- IVF and freezing embryos. Children are not commodities. They are not to be pursued by any means.

There is no resolution to the current situation of the frozen embryos. They cannot be implanted and they cacnnot be killed. Embryo adoption is not a licit solution either.

Perhaps her payments to keep her embryonic children alive indefinitely can be viewed as a form of penance for the grave situation she created. Maybe she truly did not know that IVF was wrong to do-- if so, then she may not be culpable for her original decision, but she now is responsible for the lives she created.

Yes, this is a harsh post, but creating children in a lab is a great evil. See this document of the Vatican:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20081208_dignitas-personae_en.html

From Dignitas Personae:

19. With regard to the large number of frozen embryos already in existence the question becomes: what to do with them? Some of those who pose this question do not grasp its ethical nature, motivated as they are by laws in some countries that require cryopreservation centers to empty their storage tanks periodically.*Others, however, are aware that a grave injustice has been perpetrated and wonder how best to respond to the duty of resolving it.

Proposals to use these embryos for research or for the treatment of disease are obviously unacceptable because they treat the embryos as mere “biological material” and result in their destruction. The proposal to thaw such embryos without reactivating them and use them for research, as if they were normal cadavers, is also unacceptable.[37]

The proposal that these embryos could be put at the disposal of infertile couples as a treatment for infertility is not ethically acceptable for the same reasons which make artificial heterologous procreation illicit as well as any form of surrogate motherhood;[38] this practice would also lead to other problems of a medical, psychological and legal nature.

It has also been proposed, solely in order to allow human beings to be born who are otherwise condemned to destruction, that there could be a form of “prenatal adoption”. This proposal, praiseworthy with regard to the intention of respecting and defending human life, presents however various problems not dissimilar to those mentioned above.

All things considered, it needs to be recognized that the thousands of abandoned embryos represent a situation of injustice which in fact cannot be resolved. Therefore John Paul II made an “appeal to the conscience of the world’s scientific authorities and in particular to doctors, that the production of human embryos be halted, taking into account that there seems to be no morally licit solution regarding the human destiny of the thousands and thousands of ‘frozen’ embryos which are and remain the subjects of essential rights and should therefore be protected by law as human persons”.[39]*

So, from above, she cannot kill them, she cannot implant them, she cannot give them for adoption. She can only continue to sustain the lives she created.

While certainly the cancer she has undergone and resulting sterility are not her fault and cancer is a terrible thing to have happen to you, that is a separate issue from the IVF issue.

 

[mommy_k]

Praying for all embryos that have been created and robbed of life because of human sin. This breaks my heart.

 

[UpUpAndAway]

she cannot kill them, she cannot implant them, she cannot give them for adoption. She can only continue to sustain the lives she created.

I agree with this, but wonder…what happens when the woman dies and thus is no longer around to pay the monthly bill?

 

[Zekariya]

So, from above, she cannot kill them, she cannot implant them, she cannot give them for adoption. She can only continue to sustain the lives she created.

I am against abortion in all cases but want to throw this thought out here…

If it is permissible (and I assume that it is) for a Catholic to “pull the plug” of a brain-dead loved one, wouldn’t the frozen embryos be seen in a similar light?

They are in suspended animation. Divine law does not permit them to ever be implanted and develop. Essentially, they are in a similar situation as would be a brain-dead loved one. Is it not permissible to “pull the plug”? Why unnaturally extend the life of one but not the other?

I’d say, thaw them and baptize them while they are still alive. It would seem to be more beneficial in my opinion.

 

[1ke]

I am against abortion in all cases but want to throw this thought out here…

If it is permissible (and I assume that it is) for a Catholic to “pull the plug” of a brain-dead loved one, wouldn’t the frozen embryos be seen in a similar light?

Not per Dignitas Personae:

there seems to be **no morally licit solution regarding the human destiny of the thousands and thousands of ‘frozen’ embryos **which are and remain the subjects of essential rights and should therefore be protected by law as human persons

 

[Zekariya]

Not per Dignitas Personae:

there seems to be **no morally licit solution regarding the human destiny of the thousands and thousands of ‘frozen’ embryos **which are and remain the subjects of essential rights and should therefore be protected by law as human persons

I see. Thanks.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

Not per Dignitas Personae:

there seems to be **no morally licit solution regarding the human destiny of the thousands and thousands of ‘frozen’ embryos **which are and remain the subjects of essential rights and should therefore be protected by law as human persons

Here’s the thing, pulling the plug on a brain dead relative does not deprive them of essential rights and it is not only legal to do so, but the church condones it as well, even though they are human persons. I think that human embryos that can never have a chance at life and are being kept alive by artificial means (exposure to extremely cold temperatures) would fall under the same umbrella.

 

[marymary1975]

I agree with this, but wonder…what happens when the woman dies and thus is no longer around to pay the monthly bill?

Well actually the truth is that all those embryos are going to be destroyed by the laboratory. Those laboratories do not hold embryos indefinitely and even if someone keeps paying the bill after certain amount of time (someone told me usually ten years).they just send a letter to the owner basically saying if you don’t take them.out they are going to be destroyed, so same thing if the woman dies before the laboratory will destroy them. I was going to say basically the same thing as mommy k, this whole situation breaks my heart. All these embryos whose life has been robbed away from them, I can’t understand how people can do IVF and how so many people don’t see anything wrong with it.

 

[robert_chacon]

t is only complicated because she committed a grave evil in the first place-- IVF and freezing embryos. Children are not commodities. They are not to be pursued by any means

Sad but true. We make a mess of our lives when we disobey Gods commandments of His Church, and then despair at how rigid the Church is in its dogma. We’re like spoiled little children who wonder why we have to be spanked for hitting our siblings. Were just as foolish and ignorant, but as adults we are capable of creating far more evil and negative impacts on our lives and those around us.

God have mercy on us!

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

It is only complicated because she committed a grave evil in the first place-- IVF and freezing embryos. Children are not commodities. They are not to be pursued by any means.

There is no resolution to the current situation of the frozen embryos. They cannot be implanted and they cacnnot be killed. Embryo adoption is not a licit solution either.

Perhaps her payments to keep her embryonic children alive indefinitely can be viewed as a form of penance for the grave situation she created. Maybe she truly did not know that IVF was wrong to do-- if so, then she may not be culpable for her original decision, but she now is responsible for the lives she created.

Yes, this is a harsh post, but creating children in a lab is a great evil. See this document of the Vatican:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20081208_dignitas-personae_en.html

From Dignitas Personae:

1. With regard to the large number of frozen embryos already in existence the question becomes: what to do with them?* Some of those who pose this question do not grasp its ethical nature, motivated as they are by laws in some countries that require cryopreservation centers to empty their storage tanks periodically.*Others, however, are aware that a grave injustice has been perpetrated and wonder how best to respond to the duty of resolving it.

Proposals to use these embryos for research or for the treatment of disease are obviously unacceptable because they treat the embryos as mere “biological material” and result in their destruction. The proposal to thaw such embryos without reactivating them and use them for research, as if they were normal cadavers, is also unacceptable.[37]

The proposal that these embryos could be put at the disposal of infertile couples as a treatment for infertility is not ethically acceptable for the same reasons which make artificial heterologous procreation illicit as well as any form of surrogate motherhood;[38] this practice would also lead to other problems of a medical, psychological and legal nature.

It has also been proposed, solely in order to allow human beings to be born who are otherwise condemned to destruction, that there could be a form of “prenatal adoption”. This proposal, praiseworthy with regard to the intention of respecting and defending human life, presents however various problems not dissimilar to those mentioned above.

All things considered, it needs to be recognized that the thousands of abandoned embryos represent a situation of injustice which in fact cannot be resolved. Therefore John Paul II made an “appeal to the conscience of the world’s scientific authorities and in particular to doctors, that the production of human embryos be halted, taking into account that there seems to be no morally licit solution regarding the human destiny of the thousands and thousands of ‘frozen’ embryos which are and remain the subjects of essential rights and should therefore be protected by law as human persons”.[39]

So, from above, she cannot kill them, she cannot implant them, she cannot give them for adoption. She can only continue to sustain the lives she created.

While certainly the cancer she has undergone and resulting sterility are not her fault and cancer is a terrible thing to have happen to you, that is a separate issue from the IVF issue.

Dignitas personae is referring to abandoned embryos. It isn’t clear that the own mother of the babies cannot rescue her own babies by having them implanted in her own womb.

]

 

[1ke]

Dignitas personae is referring to abandoned embryos. It isn’t clear that the own mother of the babies cannot rescue her own babies by having them implanted in her own womb.

The OP was clear that the woman in question cannot “rescure her own babies” due to her prior medical issues. The entire question was about other options.

You are arguing a premise not in question.

 

[marymary1975]

Sad but true. We make a mess of our lives when we disobey Gods commandments of His Church, and then despair at how rigid the Church is in its dogma. We’re like spoiled little children who wonder why we have to be spanked for hitting our siblings. Were just as foolish and ignorant, but as adults we are capable of creating far more evil and negative impacts on our lives and those around us.

God have mercy on us!

Yes, very sad but true

 

[agapewolf]

Dr. John Haas,the president of the catholic bioethics center, disagrees with the absolute conclusion that 1ke has presented.

Looking VERY carefully at the language, He says that this document does not outright ban adopting abandoned embryos, at this time.

He says that at some point with further study of the ethics, it is most likely the church will completely ban the practice, but at this particular time, it isn’t. This information was presented at my class: by Dr. Haas at the TOB institute class “Catholic Sexual Ethics”, in June 2011.

I suggest contacting the National Catholic Bioethics center for information.

 

[1ke]

Dr. John Haas,the president of the catholic bioethics center, disagrees with the absolute conclusion that 1ke has presented.

Looking VERY carefully at the language, He says that this document does not outright ban adopting abandoned embryos, at this time.

If one changes the meaning of the words “no” and “cannot” then I suppose one can come to a different conclusion.

I have high regard for the NCBC, but really Dignitas Personae says “no morally licit solution”. So, I must go with that until the Church says otherwise. A moral theologian’s opinion cannot overrule the plain meaning of the words in the document from the Church itself.

Lack of a “ban” is not relevant, IMHO, when the document says there is “no” solution for these children.

 

[agapewolf]

If one changes the meaning of the words “no” and “cannot” then I suppose one can come to a different conclusion.

I have high regard for the NCBC, but really Dignitas Personae says “no morally licit solution”. So, I must go with that until the Church says otherwise. A moral theologian’s opinion cannot overrule the plain meaning of the words in the document from the Church itself.

Lack of a “ban” is not relevant, IMHO, when the document says there is “no” solution for these children.

You ommitted the word “seems” in your analysis. This particular sentence is in reference to JPII asking for the halting of producing the embryos. Other factors are also in account of the interpretation of this particular area.

We read the very same document in class, this whole section, several times, explaining each sentence carefully. The bishops consult Dr. Haas in their writing of these documents as well. They are not really separate and opposing opinions here.

I suggest consulting the center for more information.

 

[Rau]

It is only complicated because she committed a grave evil in the first place-- IVF and freezing embryos. Children are not commodities. They are not to be pursued by any means.

There is no resolution to the current situation of the frozen embryos. They cannot be implanted and they cacnnot be killed. Embryo adoption is not a licit solution either.

Perhaps her payments to keep her embryonic children alive indefinitely can be viewed as a form of penance for the grave situation she created. Maybe she truly did not know that IVF was wrong to do-- if so, then she may not be culpable for her original decision, but she now is responsible for the lives she created.

Yes, this is a harsh post, but creating children in a lab is a great evil. See this document of the Vatican:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20081208_dignitas-personae_en.html

From Dignitas Personae:

19. With regard to the large number of frozen embryos already in existence the question becomes: what to do with them? Some of those who pose this question do not grasp its ethical nature, motivated as they are by laws in some countries that require cryopreservation centers to empty their storage tanks periodically.*Others, however, are aware that a grave injustice has been perpetrated and wonder how best to respond to the duty of resolving it.

Proposals to use these embryos for research or for the treatment of disease are obviously unacceptable because they treat the embryos as mere “biological material” and result in their destruction. The proposal to thaw such embryos without reactivating them and use them for research, as if they were normal cadavers, is also unacceptable.[37]

The proposal that these embryos could be put at the disposal of infertile couples as a treatment for infertility is not ethically acceptable for the same reasons which make artificial heterologous procreation illicit as well as any form of surrogate motherhood;[38] this practice would also lead to other problems of a medical, psychological and legal nature.

It has also been proposed, solely in order to allow human beings to be born who are otherwise condemned to destruction, that there could be a form of “prenatal adoption”. This proposal, praiseworthy with regard to the intention of respecting and defending human life, presents however various problems not dissimilar to those mentioned above.

All things considered, it needs to be recognized that the thousands of abandoned embryos represent a situation of injustice which in fact cannot be resolved. Therefore John Paul II made an “appeal to the conscience of the world’s scientific authorities and in particular to doctors, that the production of human embryos be halted, taking into account that there seems to be no morally licit solution regarding the human destiny of the thousands and thousands of ‘frozen’ embryos which are and remain the subjects of essential rights and should therefore be protected by law as human persons*”.[39]

So, from above, she cannot kill them, she cannot implant them, she cannot give them for adoption. She can only continue to sustain the lives she created.

While certainly the cancer she has undergone and resulting sterility are not her fault and cancer is a terrible thing to have happen to you, that is a separate issue from the IVF issue.

While the conclusion is crystal clear, how it is arrived at is not so clear to me.

The do nothing option amounts to allowing those in control of the lab to pull the plug in due course.

Actively pulling the plug now seems to be the same as pulling the plug on a person whose life is maintained by artificial means, which is acceptable.

It is not clear to me why prenatal adoption is not licit, or at least preferable to other options, unless the fear is that to allow it will promote the whole process of IVF.

 

[Megan7]

It is only complicated because she committed a grave evil in the first place-- IVF and freezing embryos. Children are not commodities. They are not to be pursued by any means.

There is no resolution to the current situation of the frozen embryos. They cannot be implanted and they cacnnot be killed. Embryo adoption is not a licit solution either.

Perhaps her payments to keep her embryonic children alive indefinitely can be viewed as a form of penance for the grave situation she created. Maybe she truly did not know that IVF was wrong to do-- if so, then she may not be culpable for her original decision, but she now is responsible for the lives she created.

Yes, this is a harsh post, but creating children in a lab is a great evil. See this document of the Vatican:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20081208_dignitas-personae_en.html

From Dignitas Personae:

19. With regard to the large number of frozen embryos already in existence the question becomes: what to do with them? Some of those who pose this question do not grasp its ethical nature, motivated as they are by laws in some countries that require cryopreservation centers to empty their storage tanks periodically.*Others, however, are aware that a grave injustice has been perpetrated and wonder how best to respond to the duty of resolving it.

Proposals to use these embryos for research or for the treatment of disease are obviously unacceptable because they treat the embryos as mere “biological material” and result in their destruction. The proposal to thaw such embryos without reactivating them and use them for research, as if they were normal cadavers, is also unacceptable.[37]

The proposal that these embryos could be put at the disposal of infertile couples as a treatment for infertility is not ethically acceptable for the same reasons which make artificial heterologous procreation illicit as well as any form of surrogate motherhood;[38] this practice would also lead to other problems of a medical, psychological and legal nature.

It has also been proposed, solely in order to allow human beings to be born who are otherwise condemned to destruction, that there could be a form of “prenatal adoption”. This proposal, praiseworthy with regard to the intention of respecting and defending human life, presents however various problems not dissimilar to those mentioned above.

All things considered, it needs to be recognized that the thousands of abandoned embryos represent a situation of injustice which in fact cannot be resolved. Therefore John Paul II made an “appeal to the conscience of the world’s scientific authorities and in particular to doctors, that the production of human embryos be halted, taking into account that there seems to be no morally licit solution regarding the human destiny of the thousands and thousands of ‘frozen’ embryos which are and remain the subjects of essential rights and should therefore be protected by law as human persons*”.[39]

So, from above, she cannot kill them, she cannot implant them, she cannot give them for adoption. She can only continue to sustain the lives she created.

While certainly the cancer she has undergone and resulting sterility are not her fault and cancer is a terrible thing to have happen to you, that is a separate issue from the IVF issue.

I have heard of very conservative Protestants (with large families, they do not believe in contracepting) say its ok to adopt them, because its the charitable thing to do. Instead of leaving them in limbo. What a sad situation. I guess if we start moving the goal posts, when does it stop? Praying for those embryos.

 

[Cider]

As long as she still has a functional uterus she should still be able to carry them, even if that means she has to take hormones to maintain the pregnancy. I’m not aware of chemo or radiation treatments affecting the the ability to carry children. It can put you into menopause, but that only effects the ability to produce viable eggs and have the correct hormone levels. Even though it’s immoral science does have the ability to allow post menopausal women to carry children.

She created the mess in the first place doing something she shouldn’t have but it would seem the lessor evil at this point, to give them a chance at life than to condemn them to certain death.