IVF Technology: Ethics, Regulation, and Medical Benefits

Introduction

In the 1960s, the use of in vitro fertilization (IVF) to help couples conceive children was mired in controversy. Once media events, the births of so-called "test tube babies" no longer cause any surprise. For many people, the concept of IVF has 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 in order 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 good health, but a preferred physical appearance as well?

IVF could have tremendous potential in both preventing and curing disease. It could also encourage a dangerous trend toward eugenics, where people screen out any factors that could be seen as defects — including shortness, baldness, or darker skin tone.

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 genuine medical advancement rather than the elusive ideal of designer perfection.

Ethical Questions Raised by IVF

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." Because IVF allows frozen embryos to be implanted in another woman's womb, a woman can now give birth to a child who is genetically unrelated to her (Schaeffer). This technology thus has the power to redefine prevailing definitions of motherhood and family — definitions traditionally grounded in 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 in which 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).

It is also in private facilities that more affluent couples are more likely to use IVF technology to pursue a "designer" baby — one who is free not only from disease but from physical imperfections.

Corollary to this, legal scholars could begin to address the issues raised by IVF technology's challenges to prevailing definitions of parental rights and personhood. As is the case with most new scientific developments, the current legal system has yet to fully accommodate the changes wrought by IVF technology.

Scientific Benefits of IVF Research

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 fertilizing an egg cell with a sperm cell in a Petri dish, current techniques allow scientists to go much farther. Through a procedure called germline technology, for example, scientists and parents can 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 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 embryos and implanted one with the matching blood cells their daughter needed (Trafford). Though they were criticized for creating a child for "spare parts," Molly's parents viewed their situation differently. To them, the miracle birth of Adam also heralded the miracle recovery of Molly.

Conclusion

Any scientific development has the potential to challenge a society's values and prevailing way of life, and the use of IVF technology is no exception. This technology is disruptive in the sense that it raises disturbing questions about fundamental relationships such as parenthood. It also challenges religious definitions of personhood.

However, calls to ban this technology altogether are unrealistic given the tremendous potential benefits IVF can offer society. Instead of an outright ban, this paper argues that increased government regulation is necessary both to prevent careless errors on the part of private IVF providers and to establish new legal frameworks addressing the changing definitions of parenthood and personhood. Only by defining a common middle ground can society continue to benefit from the vast medical potential promised by assisted reproductive technology.

Works Cited

Jonietz, Erika. "Choosing Our Children's Genetic Futures." Technology Review, vol. 106, no. 1, February 2003. Proquest Database.

Schaeffer, Pamela. "In Vitro Fertilization Widely Used." National Catholic Reporter, vol. 36, no. 1, October 1999. Proquest Database.

Trafford, Abigail. "Second Opinion." The Washington Post, 14 November 2000. Proquest Database.