Some Views on Assited Reproductive Technology

The Catholic Church is one of the few religious organizations that have a judgment on ART. The Catholic Church does not fully condemn the practice of ART but rather certain procedures. Church officials feel that fertility drugs and diet and lifestyle changes are not violating any religious doctrines because they are simply improving a woman’s health in order to conceive. The use of fertility drugs in this case, according to the church, is the equivalent of taking medication for diseases similarly to hormonal use of insulin with diabetes and thyroid replacement therapy with a medication called Synthroid. The Pope categorizes other forms of ART into two types; one is referred to as Homologous and the other is Heterologous. Homologous ensures that the process will use the sperm and egg of the husband and wife. Heterologous uses a third party for either egg or sperm donation. Both of these categories apply to IVF. The Catholic Church condones the use of IVF because the procedure removes the intimacy and unity that a married couple shares with intercourse. The Church does not support a Homologous procedure and finds objectionable cause with the Heterologous method. Strikingly however, the child that results from an IVF procedure still has the privileges and dignity as a member of the Catholic Church. The Church believes that life begins at the moment of conception.

While the concept of Assisted Reproductive Technology, helping couples in order to get pregnant, seems to be the quote “right thing to do,” there have been many ethical dilemmas that have been brought up by this subject. One ethical issue is whether or not it is man’s duty to create life. There are many philosophical systems that can address such questions regarding ART. The two main philosophical categories are Consequentialist and Non Consequentialist.

Two Consequentialist viewpoints are utilitarian and egoist. The utilitarian philosophy means “the greatest good to the greatest number.” If looking at ART through a utilitarian lens, one could support the science of reproductive health considering it is helping many couples conceive which can be considered “good.” A utilitarian could disagree just as easily by saying that there is overpopulation in the world and creating more life would not be “good.” An egoist, unlike a utilitarian, reflects on his own self interests to react to a problem. The egoist would scrutinize the issues of ART and decide whether or not those actions are going to affect what he is going to do. An egoist would not have a problem with ART because infertile egoists would be able to pursue such technologies by their choice. It would not interfere with a healthy egoist’s lifestyle.

Respect for persons and natural law are two sub categories of the non consequentialist philosophy. The respect for persons doctrine is reminiscent of the “golden rule” which is do onto others as you would want them to do onto you. Apply the respect for person ethic system to ART, one would find that it would be morally permissible. If the person who is healthy considers him or herself to be infertile he should have the opportunities to pursue what he needs. The natural law theory states that there are certain laws that have been created by nature. A person who believes in natural law may not think that ART such as IVF is permissible considering it is not natural form of pregnancy.

ART has become an integral part of modern society and will continue to grow. Many infertile couples are turning to ART as a means to have a child. As the technology advances, ART procedures will also become less expensive and open to more people. Parents will also be able to choose what type of child they want with the advances in ART. With such advances like choosing what kind of child a parent wants, will cause additional ethical issues for the public to debate. One issue that has become prevalent since the completion of the Genome project is the types of testing that can be done on embryos. While many genetic diseases can be investigated from such testing, is it the right for parent to know what their child has? Another question that is raised is it ethical to destroy that embryo if it has a certain genetic defect. As ART progresses, many other questions are going to be addressed. One problem is that as ART progresses, many features can be chosen for your child such as hair, gender, height and more. Where can people draw the line between developing a healthy baby in contrast to developing a perfect child?