Gamete Intrafallopian Transfer

[Maxirad]

The Catholic Church considers IVF to be intrinsically evil. Does anyone in this forum believe that Gamete Intrafallopian Transfer (GIFT) is evil?

 

[Bookcat]

For details on such contact the “National Catholic Bioethics Center”

 

[Cristiano]

The Catholic Church considers IVF to be intrinsically evil. Does anyone in this forum believe that Gamete Intrafallopian Transfer (GIFT) is evil?

From an article in the USCCB website:

Begotten Not Made: A Catholic View of Reproductive Technology
by John M. Haas, Ph.D., S.T.L.

"Most theologians consider the procedure known as LTOT, or Lower Tubal Ovum Transfer, to be morally acceptable. This involves transferring the wife’s egg beyond a blockage in the fallopian tube so that marital relations can result in pregnancy. Another method, more morally controversial, is called GIFT, or Gamete Intra-Fallopian Transfer. It involves obtaining a husband’s sperm following marital relations and aspirating an egg from the wife’s ovary. Egg and sperm are placed in a tiny tube separated by an air bubble, and the contents of the tube are then injected into the wife’s fallopian tube with the hope that fertilization will occur. Some theologians consider this to be a replacement of the marital act, and therefore immoral. Other theologians see it as assisting the marital act, and therefore permissible. Because the teaching authorities of the Church—the Pope and bishops—have not made a judgment about GIFT, Catholic couples are free to choose it or reject it depending on the guidance of their own conscience. If the teaching authority of the Church should judge the procedure to be immoral, however, GIFT should no longer be used. "

 

[buc_fan33]

Christiano more or less beat me to it, but we studied this procedure, and others like it, in my sexual and bioethics coure in the seminary. Suffice it to say, that with respect to GIFT, there is legitimate debate among faithful Catholic moral theologians. Since the Church has not said definitively that this practice is morally acceptable or not, we must apply the principles of sound Catholic moral theology to the best of our ability and come to a conclusion that we are comfortable with in conscience.

Obviously, the question is does this procedure assist or substitute for the marital act? If the sperm is collected via masturbation, then it certainly is immoral. But, if the sperm is collected through normal intercourse in a perforated condom, then there is some leeway.

My personal take is that since the sperm used to perform the procedure is from that left over in the condom (I.e. some is ejaculated into the woman’s vagina and some is left in the condom, that left in the condom is used for the procedure), this procedure substitutes for, rather than assists, the marital act.

This procedure is very similar to TOTS (Tubal Ovum Transfer with Sperm) and SIFT (Sperm Inter-Fallopian Tube Transfer).

But, I reiterate, and this is important, faithful moral theologians disagree on this point. Bill May, Germaine Grisez, and Ashley O’Rourke say it substitutes; Donald McCarthy, Orville Grisez, and Peter Cataldo say it assists. The Church has not said anything definitive on this procedure, at least to the best of my knowledge. If they have, it’s been in the last two years at most.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

If the sperm is collected via masturbation, then it certainly is immoral. But, if the sperm is collected through normal intercourse in a perforated condom, then there is some leeway.

I would argue that, in this instance, masturbation would not be considered an intrinsic evil. What makes masturbation an evil is that is i done: 1: in place of marital relations, and 2: selfishly (for your own gratification).

In this instance it would not be being done to subvert the marital act, but rather to ensure (or, increase the odds) of having a child. This should of course only be done if the couple has been completely unable to conceive any other way. But since the act is not being done for selfish gratification, or done in place of the marital act (since the marital act has proven unsuccessful at conception), then I do not think it would fall into the same category as typical masturbation.

As for the process, personally, I think it would fall into the morally permissible category. You are not selecting one from many fertilized eggs; the eggs and sperm are from the mother and father and not outside donors; and the child is then placed back into the mother’s tubes to be allowed to grow naturally.

 

[buc_fan33]

I would argue that, in this instance, masturbation would not be considered an intrinsic evil. What makes masturbation an evil is that is i done: 1: in place of marital relations, and 2: selfishly (for your own gratification).

In this instance it would not be being done to subvert the marital act, but rather to ensure (or, increase the odds) of having a child. This should of course only be done if the couple has been completely unable to conceive any other way. But since the act is not being done for selfish gratification, or done in place of the marital act (since the marital act has proven unsuccessful at conception), then I do not think it would fall into the same category as typical masturbation.

As for the process, personally, I think it would fall into the morally permissible category. You are not selecting one from many fertilized eggs; the eggs and sperm are from the mother and father and not outside donors; and the child is then placed back into the mother’s tubes to be allowed to grow naturally.

Friend, be careful with your moral reasoning here. There are a couple of things wrong.

Masturbation, by definition, is an intrinsic evil. Regardless of the ends of why one may do it, it is still objectively wrong, and the Church has said as much. The ends never justify the means. Even if we are using the Principle of Double Effect, there are still problems, because PPD only implies that an objectively good, or at least morally neutral act, has foreseen evil consequences that are tolerated, not willed or intended. You can’t do evil to accomplish good.

Secondly, as the moral teaching of the Church makes clear, what matters is NOT from WHOM the gametes comes, but HOW they come together. In other words, is the means used to achieve conception ethical? The criteria for judging whether it is ethical is the simple question, “does this process SUBSTITUTE for or ASSIST the marital act?” If it substitutes, it is unethical. Masturbation substitutes for the marital act. The spouses do not become one flesh. There is no union to that act. We can never divorce the unitive and procreative ends of intercourse. Having sex that is closed to life is immoral, as is trying to have life without sex.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Friend, be careful with your moral reasoning here. There are a couple of things wrong.

Masturbation, by definition, is an intrinsic evil. Regardless of the ends of why one may do it, it is still objectively wrong, and the Church has said as much. The ends never justify the means. Even if we are using the Principle of Double Effect, there are still problems, because PPD only implies that an objectively good, or at least morally neutral act, has foreseen evil consequences that are tolerated, not willed or intended. You can’t do evil to accomplish good.

Secondly, as the moral teaching of the Church makes clear, what matters is NOT from WHOM the gametes comes, but HOW they come together. In other words, is the means used to achieve conception ethical? The criteria for judging whether it is ethical is the simple question, “does this process SUBSTITUTE for or ASSIST the marital act?” If it substitutes, it is unethical. Masturbation substitutes for the marital act. The spouses do not become one flesh. There is no union to that act. We can never divorce the unitive and procreative ends of intercourse. Having sex that is closed to life is immoral, as is trying to have life without sex.

Well explained, I’ll keep all that in mind. But I still thought that the intention behind an act has as much to do with the morality of the act as the act itself. I had always thought it was the selfish nature of the act which made it an intrinsic evil (forsaking the marital act for self-gratification). Being as in this instance it’s not being done for selfish ends, would the label still apply?

Given your explanation, I still wouldn’t call is morally wrong though. They are not taking any lives as with IVF, and they are not rejecting the marital act. If they’ve tried continuously and had no success, then how can this, which seeks to procreate life in the most natural method they are capable of, be considered wrong?

(Luckily, we’re able to disagree on this one Though, if the church comes out and says it’s wrong, I might not agree, but I’ll still take the church at its word. She knows better than I ever will )

 

[buc_fan33]

Well explained, I’ll keep all that in mind. But I still thought that the intention behind an act has as much to do with the morality of the act as the act itself. I had always thought it was the selfish nature of the act which made it an intrinsic evil (forsaking the marital act for self-gratification). Being as in this instance it’s not being done for selfish ends, would the label still apply?

Given your explanation, I still wouldn’t call is morally wrong though. They are not taking any lives as with IVF, and they are not rejecting the marital act. If they’ve tried continuously and had no success, then how can this, which seeks to procreate life in the most natural method they are capable of, be considered wrong?

(Luckily, we’re able to disagree on this one Though, if the church comes out and says it’s wrong, I might not agree, but I’ll still take the church at its word. She knows better than I ever will )

Yes. In evaluating the morality of an act, object (what you are doing), intention (why you are doing it), and circumstances all come into play. Both object and intention must be good for the act to be good. So, for instance, robbing a grocery store (bad object) in order to feed my family (good intention) is still morally wrong. Donating money to charity (good object) so I can appear to be a charitable person and thus stroke my own ego and fall into pride (bad intention) is morally wrong. Circumstances only come into play when there is a good object and a good intention. For example, I want to give money to the poor (good object) because I sincerely want to help them and do not want any false praise (good intention), but I use the money that I had set aside to help pay for my child’s Catholic education, and we can’t afford it (bad circumstance rendering the act imprudent at best, immoral at worst).

When evaluating a moral act, always think object, intention, circumstance, and I would even say, in that order. Masturbation=bad object. Therefore, regardless of why it is done, the act is immoral.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Yes. In evaluating the morality of an act, object (what you are doing), intention (why you are doing it), and circumstances all come into play. Both object and intention must be good for the act to be good. So, for instance, robbing a grocery store (bad object) in order to feed my family (good intention) is still morally wrong. Donating money to charity (good object) so I can appear to be a charitable person and thus stroke my own ego and fall into pride (bad intention) is morally wrong. Circumstances only come into play when there is a good object and a good intention. For example, I want to give money to the poor (good object) because I sincerely want to help them and do not want any false praise (good intention), but I use the money that I had set aside to help pay for my child’s Catholic education, and we can’t afford it (bad circumstance rendering the act imprudent at best, immoral at worst).

When evaluating a moral act, always think object, intention, circumstance, and I would even say, in that order. Masturbation=bad object. Therefore, regardless of why it is done, the act is immoral.

Logical enough. I can agree with this. My opinion on the procedure still stands though, given that they procure the sperm in the fashion you described.

 

[buc_fan33]

Logical enough. I can agree with this. My opinion on the procedure still stands though, given that they procure the sperm in the fashion you described.

And that’s absolutely no problem. You’re in good company. This is one area where Catholics can legitimately disagree.

 

[Maxirad]

Could someone tell me what was the deal with Brooke Shields? She brought up GIFT in this book she wrote.