What is the moral thing to do with "leftover" embyros?

[joeflow]

What should be done with embryos created from IVF, that are frozen, awaiting further action?

Obviously, sacrificing them for embryonic stem cell research is not an option, but wouldn’t simply letting them “thaw” and die be bad as well? They both result in the intentional destruction of life.

Say the people involved in creating these embryos had a change of heart, and repented of their wrongdoing. What would they be morally obligated to do next?

Would finding a mother who would be willing to allow these embryos implanted in her be the moral thing to do?

Or should the embryos remain frozen indefinitely?

Is there ANY moral action one could take?

 

[manualman]

The Church hasn’t officially discerned an authoritative answer yet. There seem to be two opposing positions with decent backing in catholic morality.

1. The evil in IVF is in the creation of new life outside the loving embrace of marriage, storage of “extra embryos,” and in the “selective reduction” (killing the spares) often employed in the process. Adopting frozen embryos and having them implanted in ones own uterus is a form of rescue (presuming no recourse to ‘selective reduction’). The only care that must be taken is to avoid the temptation to be glad of the evil of IVF in order for the fulfillment of one’s own reproductive desires. (Theoretically no harder than being glad for unwed mothers who give babies up for adoption)
2. In addition to the above mentioned evils, it is a violation of God’s plan for sexuality and procreation to impregnate a woman via means other than the marriage embrace. Even though the conception is already done, it would be compounding the sin to impregnate a woman in such a mere technological way. Such a violation does a subtle, but real damage to the union of man and wife. Even noble motivation does not permit the use of immoral means.

I tend towards the latter position myself. The IVF practitioners have put the unborn children in such a horrible spot. Such a crime cannot be used to coerce innocent people into commiting an evil act to save them. I’ve come around 180 degrees on this issue as I’ve come to a better understanding of what our sexuality is really all about.

 

[joeflow]

The Church hasn’t officially discerned an authoritative answer yet. There seem to be two opposing positions with decent backing in catholic morality.

1. The evil in IVF is in the creation of new life outside the loving embrace of marriage, storage of “extra embryos,” and in the “selective reduction” (killing the spares) often employed in the process. Adopting frozen embryos and having them implanted in ones own uterus is a form of rescue (presuming no recourse to ‘selective reduction’). The only care that must be taken is to avoid the temptation to be glad of the evil of IVF in order for the fulfillment of one’s own reproductive desires. (Theoretically no harder than being glad for unwed mothers who give babies up for adoption)
2. In addition to the above mentioned evils, it is a violation of God’s plan for sexuality and procreation to impregnate a woman via means other than the marriage embrace. Even though the conception is already done, it would be compounding the sin to impregnate a woman in such a mere technological way. Such a violation does a subtle, but real damage to the union of man and wife. Even noble motivation does not permit the use of immoral means.

I tend towards the latter position myself. The IVF practitioners have put the unborn children in such a horrible spot. Such a crime cannot be used to coerce innocent people into commiting an evil act to save them. I’ve come around 180 degrees on this issue as I’ve come to a better understanding of what our sexuality is really all about.

This is a hypothetical question, as of know, since scientists are in the process of developing them, but say the technology existed for an artificial womb? Would it be morally acceptable to “birth” these embyros in that?

It is okay for premature babies to be in incubators and have additional help, so it seems to me this be morally acceptable. A fertilized egg would simply be a VERY early premature baby. Your thoughts?

I won’t accept that this is a “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” scenario. There has to be a moral “way out”.

 

[manualman]

Good question, but one way over my head. You may be on to something, but I think the medical technology is way behind you.

I think it inappropriate to label case #1 “damned if you do, damned if you don’t.” The wrongdoing was done by those who opted for IVF. Being unable to morally rescue them does not in any way ‘damn’ those not guilty of the artificially making them in the first place.

 

[Bear_Claw]

What should be done with embryos created from IVF, that are frozen, awaiting further action?

Obviously, sacrificing them for embryonic stem cell research is not an option

Why?

but wouldn’t simply letting them “thaw” and die be bad as well? They both result in the intentional destruction of life.

You answered your own question…except that in stem cell research, at least they will not have died in vain…and now with the ban on funding being lifted, they have the change to offer some real scientific progress that will go a long way to helping all kinds of sick people. That’s noble too.

 

[magdelaine]

Why?

You answered your own question…except that in stem cell research, at least they will not have died in vain…and now with the ban on funding being lifted, they have the change to offer some real scientific progress that will go a long way to helping all kinds of sick people. That’s noble too.

Oh no, no, no. Experimentation with their cells, and thus causing their destruction, is a horrible offense against the diginity of the human person. No person, no matter how small, should be thought of as something to be used.

Instead it would be far more ethical to let them thaw and then properly mourn them, eulogize them, and memorialize them. They are people from beginning to end!

Besides the whole “embryo stem cells=scientific advances” meme is full of c***. That’s why folks keep pushing for government funding; no private entity would want to invest in something that does not work. Adult stem cells? Now that’s a whole different matter.

 

[SuscipeMeDomine]

What should be done with embryos created from IVF, that are frozen, awaiting further action?

The short answer is that there is no solution to this problem. It was addressed by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in a document titled Instruction Dignitas Personae on Certain Bioethical Questions source].

In part the document says:

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]
**

 

[rwoehmke]

Baptize them and let them die a natural death!

 

[Bear_Claw]

Oh no, no, no. Experimentation with their cells, and thus causing their destruction, is a horrible offense against the diginity of the human person. No person, no matter how small, should be thought of as something to be used

Instead it would be far more ethical to let them thaw and then properly mourn them, eulogize them, and memorialize them. They are people from beginning to end!

How is this different from say, organ donors? they human is deceased, or will be, and organs are harvested to assist another human.
Only in this case, think of how name humans they will eventually help.
It’s noble.
You are advocating that the deaths are for nothing…Why can’t they be mourned and eulogized too?

Besides the whole “embryo stem cells=scientific advances” meme is full of c***. That’s why folks keep pushing for government funding; no private entity would want to invest in something that does not work. Adult stem cells? Now that’s a whole different matter.

Really? See this Wiki Artickle
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stem_cell_research

Superiority
Embryonic stem cells can be considered far more useful therapeutically than adult stem cells

This is usually presented as a counter-argument to using adult stem cells as an alternative that doesn’t involve embryonic destruction.

 

[manualman]

How is this different from say, organ donors? they human is deceased, or will be, and organs are harvested to assist another human.
Only in this case, think of how name humans they will eventually help.
It’s noble.
You are advocating that the deaths are for nothing…Why can’t they be mourned and eulogized too?

Your analogy is almost, but not quite right. Normal organ donation comes after death from unsought causes: car accidents, gunshots, etc.

Here’s an improved version of the analogy. Al Qaeda kidnaps 100 Americans in countries around the world. They announce their intention to execute them for the crimes of the Great Satan America. But since they are good, religious guys at heart, they offer immunity and protection to any good muslim doctor who wishes to come harvest their organs upon the execution. After all, why should they die in vain?

Now tell me, how do you feel about any doctor who takes them up on the offer? Any patient who seeks to receive one of the organs?

For that matter, how about we seize the organs of all criminals condemned to die via the death penalty? How’d you feel about receiving one of those?

I humbly suggest that you may have unconsciously started to believe that the unborn are less human than you and me. Beware the subtle influence of the culture we live in.

 

[Bear_Claw]

Your analogy is almost, but not quite right. Normal organ donation comes after death from unsought causes: car accidents, gunshots, etc.

Here’s an improved version of the analogy. Al Qaeda kidnaps 100 Americans in countries around the world. They announce their intention to execute them for the crimes of the Great Satan America. But since they are good, religious guys at heart, they offer immunity and protection to any good muslim doctor who wishes to come harvest their organs upon the execution. After all, why should they die in vain?

Now tell me, how do you feel about any doctor who takes them up on the offer? Any patient who seeks to receive one of the organs?

For that matter, how about we seize the organs of all criminals condemned to die via the death penalty? How’d you feel about receiving one of those?

How many people have died from not receiving a liver, or kidney, or heart at the right time? If that was me, or one of my family, I would be happy to receive that organ. It saves lives. Otherwise it’s lives that could be saved that are being lost due to our inability to cross a mental line.

I humbly suggest that you may have unconsciously started to believe that the unborn are less human than you and me. Beware the subtle influence of the culture we live in.

I don’t want to get into that now, it would derail the thread, but if I could restate that, the inability to use the cells that are there, may be placing a higher value on them than the millions of folks with diabetes, leukemia etc that would really benefit from this.

 

[Swan]

Your analogy is almost, but not quite right. Normal organ donation comes after death from unsought causes: car accidents, gunshots, etc.

Here’s an improved version of the analogy. Al Qaeda kidnaps 100 Americans in countries around the world. They announce their intention to execute them for the crimes of the Great Satan America. But since they are good, religious guys at heart, they offer immunity and protection to any good muslim doctor who wishes to come harvest their organs upon the execution. After all, why should they die in vain?

Now tell me, how do you feel about any doctor who takes them up on the offer? Any patient who seeks to receive one of the organs?

For that matter, how about we seize the organs of all criminals condemned to die via the death penalty? How’d you feel about receiving one of those?

I humbly suggest that you may have unconsciously started to believe that the unborn are less human than you and me. Beware the subtle influence of the culture we live in.

I saw an analogy today that went something like this:

The Nazis round up frozen embryos and tell them they will die that day - but there are two choices. They can go through door #1 and die automatically, end of story. Or they can go through door #2 - their death will be the same, but they may help save the live of thousand of people in the process. Which door do you think they would chose?

 

[SuscipeMeDomine]

I saw an analogy today that went something like this:

The Nazis round up frozen embryos and tell them they will die that day - but there are two choices. They can go through door #1 and die automatically, end of story. Or they can go through door #2 - their death will be the same, but they may help save the live of thousand of people in the process. Which door do you think they would chose?

What if you change your analogy slightly?

The Nazis round up African Americans and tell them they will die that day…
The Nazis round up Catholics and tell them they will die that day…
The Nazis round up 12-year-olds and tell them they will die that day…

…but if they go through door #2 they can donate their organs and save the lives of various people in the process.

No matter what the scenario, people must speak up and say that this is unacceptable. We will not allow you to treat our brothers and sisters that way.

 

[edwest2]

Everyone reading this began life as an embryo – a unique person with genetic material from the mother and father.

In-Vitro Fertilization is expensive. That’s why more embryos are made than needed. By removing the embryonic human being from the natural procreative act, it violates the spiritual and physical dignity of that act.

That having been said, it is only a wish at this point that embryonic stem cells will produce any treatments or cures. Adult Stem Cells offer two advantages already, (1) They are being used now. (2) There is no risk of rejection from the body because the cells used are your own. Finally, the Church has no problem with using these cells.

There is evidence that leftover embryos cannot stay viable indefinitely. They will eventually die, but using them as “parts” for experimentation is gravely immoral. When they do die, or get cut up for experimentation, a human death has occurred.

Peace,
Ed

 

[mapleoak]

Why?

Because it is an affront to the dignity of the human person and it involves murder.

You answered your own question…except that in stem cell research, at least they will not have died in vain…

What do mean by ‘died in vain’?

and now with the ban on funding being lifted, they have the change to offer some real scientific progress that will go a long way to helping all kinds of sick people. That’s noble too.

And if the ban were lifted on funding of the real scientific progress that can come from harvesting organs from five year old girls which could help all kinds of sick people would you be as enthusiatic to support such a noble cause?

 

[Bear_Claw]

Because it is an affront to the dignity of the human person and it involves murder.

The whole premise of the thread is that they are going to die anyway. Murder, in the Catholic view, in this scenario will be a given.

What do mean by ‘died in vain’?

If they just let the embryos thaw and die, then they will have wasted opportunities to make the deaths that are inevitable, at least mean something by helping thousands or millions of people

And if the ban were lifted on funding of the real scientific progress that can come from harvesting organs from five year old girls which could help all kinds of sick people would you be as enthusiatic to support such a noble cause?

Again, the premise is that the embryos are going to die anyway. You are taking it out of context with organ harvesting. That’s why I spoke of organ donors.

I signed up to be an organ donor, and if I die in a car crash, being terribly mangled, and they can give my corneas to a blind person, that’s OK.
If I die as a result of a terrorist invasion and execution with a bullet through the eye, but my heart can be given to a man who will once again be able to walk to his child’s room at night when she’s crying for daddy, that’s OK.

See, you need to put it in context. Organ donor vs. organ harvesting.

 

[Newbie2]

The Church hasn’t officially discerned an authoritative answer yet. There seem to be two opposing positions with decent backing in catholic morality.

1. The evil in IVF is in the creation of new life outside the loving embrace of marriage, storage of “extra embryos,” and in the “selective reduction” (killing the spares) often employed in the process. Adopting frozen embryos and having them implanted in ones own uterus is a form of rescue (presuming no recourse to ‘selective reduction’). The only care that must be taken is to avoid the temptation to be glad of the evil of IVF in order for the fulfillment of one’s own reproductive desires. (Theoretically no harder than being glad for unwed mothers who give babies up for adoption)
2. In addition to the above mentioned evils, it is a violation of God’s plan for sexuality and procreation to impregnate a woman via means other than the marriage embrace. Even though the conception is already done, it would be compounding the sin to impregnate a woman in such a mere technological way. Such a violation does a subtle, but real damage to the union of man and wife. Even noble motivation does not permit the use of immoral means.

I tend towards the latter position myself. The IVF practitioners have put the unborn children in such a horrible spot. Such a crime cannot be used to coerce innocent people into commiting an evil act to save them. I’ve come around 180 degrees on this issue as I’ve come to a better understanding of what our sexuality is really all about.

Yeah, it’s a tough question. I’d opt for embryo adoption; I guess I don’t see it as compounding the sin, but preventing a further sin of killing the embryo or allowing it to die when there’s a way to have it live and trive. You’re absolutely 100% correctomundo that the IVF practitioners have opened up a very sinful can-o-worms. They have put anyone in this position in a “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” situation.

This is a hypothetical question, as of know, since scientists are in the process of developing them, but say the technology existed for an artificial womb? Would it be morally acceptable to “birth” these embyros in that?

It is okay for premature babies to be in incubators and have additional help, so it seems to me this be morally acceptable. A fertilized egg would simply be a VERY early premature baby. Your thoughts?

I won’t accept that this is a “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” scenario. There has to be a moral “way out”.

Isn’t a fertilized egg simply a very early premature baby now??

How many people have died from not receiving a liver, or kidney, or heart at the right time? If that was me, or one of my family, I would be happy to receive that organ. It saves lives. Otherwise it’s lives that could be saved that are being lost due to our inability to cross a mental line.

I don’t want to get into that now, it would derail the thread, but if I could restate that, the inability to use the cells that are there, may be placing a higher value on them than the millions of folks with diabetes, leukemia etc that would really benefit from this.

Sure, you’d be happy to receive a life-saving organ, but would you be willing to donate your son’s or daughter’s vital organs to someone else if it would cause their (donors) death? I’m not talking about a car crash where they were brain-dead, I’m speaking of making the decision to terminate your otherwise healthy child’s life in order to save one of those people who die for want of a transplant.

Morally speaking, that is the same thing as killing an embryo for the same purpose.

That is the “mental line” of which you speak, placing a lessor value on an embryo than a grown human. If you cross it for embryos, why not cross it for young children or (born) babies?

 

[Bear_Claw]

What if you change your analogy slightly?

The Nazis round up African Americans and tell them they will die that day…
The Nazis round up Catholics and tell them they will die that day…
The Nazis round up 12-year-olds and tell them they will die that day…

…but if they go through door #2 they can donate their organs and save the lives of various people in the process.

No matter what the scenario, people must speak up and say that this is unacceptable. We will not allow you to treat our brothers and sisters that way.

How can this scenario be unacceptable? You are condemning life saving actions. I thought Catholics are supposed to be living a life of giving, of servitude? And to die saving a hole heap of lives…now that would not be immoral would it? That would not be unacceptable…in fact I’m VERY surprised if an action like that will not go un-applauded by the Catholic community and the victims be hailed as heroes.

Think of what you are saying. How many people can one human body save via organ donation?
Corneas, hearts, kidneys, liver, lungs, skin, the list is long…

 

[Bear_Claw]

That having been said, it is only a wish at this point that embryonic stem cells will produce any treatments or cures. Adult Stem Cells offer two advantages already, (1) They are being used now. (2) There is no risk of rejection from the body because the cells used are your own. Finally, the Church has no problem with using these cells.

There is evidence that leftover embryos cannot stay viable indefinitely. They will eventually die, but using them as “parts” for experimentation is gravely immoral. When they do die, or get cut up for experimentation, a human death has occurred.

Peace,
Ed

So, you say that the embryos cannot stay alive indefinitely, so they will inevitably die. This ties into my original point about not letting them die in vain.

As for your list of advantages:

1. is only valid because of the restrictions of the Bush administration.
2. is probably the only advantage adult stem cells have over embryonic ones.

Read this: (from explorestemcells.co.uk/AdultVSEmbryonicStemCells.html)
Adult stem cells are generally less flexible and versatile than embryonic stem cells. Embryonic stem cells have a far greater differentiation potential than adult stem cells simply because embryonic stem cells can develop into almost every type of cell in the human body. Conversely, adult stem cells may only develop into a limited number of cell types, so their potential applications are not as great as embryonic stem cells.

How about the possibilities for treating and even curing the following list of diseases: (from newdrugs.com/stem-cell-use-in-disease.htm#other_diseases)

Neurological:
Spinal cord injury and neurotrauma
Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS)
Stroke
Cancer:
Leukemia
Skeletal:
Replacement bony structures
Osteoporosis
Autoimmune:
Rheumatoid arthritis
Multiple sclerosis
Cardiovascular:
Acute myocardial infarct
Gastrointestinal:
Diabetes
Liver disease
Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD)
Integumental:
Skin transplantation
Stem cell research is involved in many other diseases other than the ones described above. This includes everything from Alzheimer’s disease to Parkinson’s to multiple myeloma to urinary incontinence

Now tell me that you will let the embryos just die in vain when they can be responsible for treating or curing one of these…

 

[pickguard1]

Orignially posted by Swan

The Nazis round up frozen embryos and tell them they will die that day - but there are two choices. They can go through door #1 and die automatically, end of story. Or they can go through door #2 - their death will be the same, but they may help save the live of thousand of people in the process. Which door do you think they would chose?

This REAL point this analogy makes is that the doctors/scientists doing this can be equated to Nazis. Kind of like Mengele. It’s just that the people they operate and experiment on are unable to talk, so unfortunately many people believe that they are less valuable - kind of like how almost all handicapped people get treated and have gotten treated throughout history. Sounds like a major discrimination to me.

A very sad thing is, is that probably (no citation here, just my educated guess) the vast majority of those embryos are little girls. Discrimination in its ugliest form.