Question about catholic teaching regarding modern medicine

[JAGCath28]

This question came to me last night after posting in a thread regarding surrogacy. I am in complete agreement with the Church’s stance on conceiving. Using any method that removes the union between a man and woman (husband/wife) which ultimately places us in a position to play God is wrong. However, I wanted to know that if using IVF or surrogate mothers would be considered this, then wouldn’t it be the same when we have vital organ transplants done? I’m not sure really what to think about that. Where do we draw that line at God blessing us with the modern medicine to us using it to play God?

I look forward to your thoughts.

Blessings,

Jessica

 

[Newbie2]

That’s a really good question; what do we do with the thousands of frozen embryos since it is morally prohibited to dispose of (kill) them.

This is an area where the Church has yet to make any definitive statement.

However, we can use some principles to guide our thinking:

1. Such embryos were conceived by methods shunned by the Church.
2. However, there are thousands of babies conceived out of wedlock, also morally unacceptable.
3. Now we have these babies and embryos? What to do?

Babies, pretty easy solution in concept; adopt them or help support the unwed mom in raising the child.

Embryos…different story. If they stay in the frozen state, eventually they will degenerate and die. In a moral sense, it would seem that we would have an obligation to save their lives if possible.

The only way to do that is through implantation in a suitable surrogate mom.

However, such procedures seem to be morally prohibited.

My suggestion is that the IVF ship has already sailed; the embryo is made and it’s a done deal, same as the pregnant unwed teenager. Granted, while an additional medical procedure (implantation in a surrogate), the procedure is being used as a life-saving measure, vs.if it were in the course of creating a new life i.e. a new IVF procedure.

Another less directly related parallel would be the transfer of a fallopian tube (ectopic) pregnancy back into the uterus, if such a thing could be diagnosed and surgically corrected. Not a direct comparison, but the intent of implantation in that case is to save the life of the fetus. Not a great example, I’ll grant you that.

Bottom line is that it wouldn’t seem to be the implantation procedure that’s problematic, as there is a pre-existing embryo conceived through immoral circumstances.

 

[JAGCath28]

Is the thought that we shouldn’t try to create a new life outside of God’s natural means? Because wouldn’t replacing a heart in order to prevent someone’s earthly death be stepping into God’s shoes? Or is it because we are trying to preserve a life then it is okay?

 

[Newbie2]

Is the thought that we shouldn’t try to create a new life outside of God’s natural means? Because wouldn’t replacing a heart in order to prevent someone’s earthly death be stepping into God’s shoes? Or is it because we are trying to preserve a life then it is okay?

That’s part of it.

But there are limits on preserving life as well, such as culturing tissue harvested from embryos (who necessarily die) in order to replace diseased organs or tissue.

Playing God outside of nature is another good general topic. We can intervene in cases of disease (to a certain extent; there are limits) to preserve life. The Almighty gave us the intelligence to develop certain procedures, but like with nuclear power, it can be misused.

We also have to be careful not to (over) rationalize or over-simplify the argument i.e. that embryo implantation is not as bad as masturbation to obtain a sperm sample, so it is OK to do such an implantation

 

[gardenswithkids]

This question came to me last night after posting in a thread regarding surrogacy. I am in complete agreement with the Church’s stance on conceiving. Using any method that removes the union between a man and woman (husband/wife) which ultimately places us in a position to play God is wrong. However, I wanted to know that if using IVF or surrogate mothers would be considered this, then wouldn’t it be the same when we have vital organ transplants done? I’m not sure really what to think about that. Where do we draw that line at God blessing us with the modern medicine to us using it to play God?

I look forward to your thoughts.

Blessings,

Jessica

Organs transplants are not the same as surrogacy. There are ethical guidelines for organ transplants, such as making sure those who donate vital organs–like hearts–are indeed dead before doctors remove their hearts. (The term “brain dead” being used on living people with brain damage is a big concern.) And there are ethical guidelines for what modern medicine can do for treating infertility.

We can use modern medicine to attempt to correct illnesses or defects, but we must not violate moral ethics in order to do this. Surrogacy attempts to correct a defect (infertility) by violating sexual ethics.

Wombs aren’t for rent. Proper sexual ethics links baby making with love making within marriage. Infertility treatments can attempt to correct specific problem of the reproductive parts of either the husband or wife, but the baby making must remain connected with love making. Modern medicine, like our modern culture is often confused about human reproductive and sexuality. Our contraceptive culture first separated love making from baby making, and now reproductive technology often separates baby making from love making.

It is not morally correct for medical personnel to unite sperm and eggs in a petri dishes, nor to artificially inseminate women. A husband should inseminate his wife every time they make love. The Catholic Church is consistent on sexual ethics, while modern medicine is not.

While someone can donate their second (spare?) kidney to a loved one, they should not donate their one and only uterus, nor should they donate eggs or sperm. Those are “gifts of self” exchanged between husband and wife in the intimacy of their marriage. Love making is not a medical procedure, and baby making should not be either.