Changes and Challenges Associated With Widespread Use of Designer in Vitro Fertilization IVF

in Vitro Fertilization (IVF) In the 1960s, the use of in vitro fertilization (IVF) to help couples conceive children was mired in controversy. Once media events, the birth of test tube babies no longer cause any surprise. For many people, the concept of IVF had become routine. However, recent developments in IVF technology have raised more ethical quandaries.

Is it ethical for parents to use IVF technology to conceive and give birth to a child to provide donor marrow for an ill sibling? Could people ethically use IVF technology to screen for diseases such as Alzheimer's disease and breast cancer? Is it ethical for parents to "design" their baby's genes, to ensure not only health, but physical appearance, as well? IVF could have tremendous potential in both preventing and curing disease.

It could also cause a dangerous trend towards eugenics, where people screen out any factors that could be seen as defects - including shortness, baldness or darker skin. Because of its potential benefits in medical research, this paper argues that IVF research should be allowed to continue. However, the government should also regulate this technology, to help ensure that IVF research concentrates on medical research instead of the elusive ideal of designer perfection.

Ethical questions The era of IVF technology has spawned startling headlines, such as "Grandmother carries her own grandchildren" and "Baby is born two years after mother's death." Since IVF allows frozen embryos to be implanted in another woman's womb, a woman could now give birth to a child who is genetically unrelated (Schaeffer). This technology thus has the power to re-define our prevailing definitions of motherhood and family, one that was traditionally based on maternal and familial blood ties. Legal issues have also arisen from private IVF clinics.

In a 1998 case, for example, a Caucasian woman who underwent an IVF procedure gave birth to twins, one of whom was black. A black couple then sued to gain custody of their genetic child. Other examples include a post-divorce dispute over frozen embryos. The ex-wife sued to have the embryos implanted, but the court ruled in favor of the ex-husband. As a result, the frozen embryos were destroyed (Schaeffer). These legal challenges underscore the lack of legal measures to address the issues spawned by IVF technology.

This technology has already challenged the legal and cultural bases that are currently in place to define parenthood as well as personhood. To address further legal troubles, the government should first initiate stronger monitoring restrictions on private IVF facilities. After all, most legal challenges in IVF cases result from smaller, private IVF providers. It is also in private facilities that more affluent couples are more likely to use IVF technology to ensure a "designer" baby, who is free not only from disease but from physical imperfections.

Corollary to this, legal scholars could begin to address the issues raised by the challenges presented by IVF technology to prevailing definitions of parental rights and personhood. As is the case in most new scientific developments, the current legal system has yet to accommodate the changes wrought by IVF technology. Scientific benefits This paper argues for increased regulation, rather than an outright ban on IVF technology because IVF has much to offer in the field of medical research.

While IVF technology used to stop at creating an egg cell with a sperm cell in a Petri dish, current techniques allow scientists to go even farther. Through a procedure called germline technology, for example, scientists and parents could screen embryos for genetic mutations. Such pre-implantation screenings have been used for over a decade to avoid serious diseases like cystic fibrosis (Jonietz). Experts like UCLA's Gregory Stock believe that IVF technology holds the key to eventually treating a myriad of diseases such as diabetes and Alzheimer's (Stock, qtd in Jonietz).

On a more personal level, it is hard to condemn the use of IVF technology in the case of the Nash family of Minnesota. To save the life of six-year-old Molly, who was suffering from a rare form of anemia, the Nash family turned to IVF technology. Molly's parents screened the embryos and implanted one with the matching blood cells that their daughter needed (Trafford). Though they have been criticized for creating a child for "spare parts," Molly's parents view their situation differently. To them, the miracle birth of.