Embryo Harvesting And Genetic Manipulation

We are living in a new era where technology can help women have babies in unconventional ways. Having children is a personal choice. In some people’s view, government should not be regulating when people should and should not start having a family. The ethical issue is when the parents start applying for governmental benefits after the baby is conceived via In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) and born posthumously. When practicing IVF, are we violating God’s will? This paper is to discuss the views of the four candidates interviewed in relation to posthumous conception and delivery, their views on benefits/inheritance entitlement to these babies, and ethical principles and theories in

Only twenty years ago, embryo freezing (cryopreservation) was considered a technique that raised “disturbing,” “extremely difficult,” “incredibly complex,” and even “nightmarish” ethical issues. Currently, however, at least 41 of the 169 infertility clinics in the United States have begun to implement in vitro fertilization protocols (IVF) (Freemann et al., 1986). The number of frozen embryos in this country nearly tripled, from 289 to 824, between 1985 and 1986 (Van Steirteghem and Van Den Abbel, 1988). An estimated ten infants in the U.S. and sixty in the world were born as of 1988 after having been frozen as embryos. The government and professional advisory groups have endorsed embryo

This proposal is immoral because it violates a central tenet of all civilized codes on human experimentation beginning with the Nuremberg Code: It approves doing deadly harm to a member of the human species solely for the sake of potential benefit to others. The embryos to be destroyed by researchers in this campaign are at the same stage of development as embryos in the womb who have been protected as human subjects in federally funded research since 1975.(4) President Clinton's National Bioethics Advisory Commission (NBAC) and its 1994 predecessor, the NIH Human Embryo Research Panel, conceded that the early human embryo is a form of developing human life that deserves our respect(5). Treating human life as mere research material is no way to show respect.

The technology of the world today is fast-paced, fascinating, and extremely helpful in many cases. The ever-changing field of medical technology has changed and/or saved the lives of countless people. Doctors are able to perform procedures on patients today that were unheard of only 5 years ago. However, not all procedures and practices may be biblically ethical. Christians must decide which procedures are God honoring and which ones are not, especially when infertility is involved. Dr. Rae mentioned five theological foundations for bioethics that believers should evaluate in order to discern the uses of technology in the interference of the natural process of conception. Dr. Rae’s list consisted of the following: Dominion Mandate, Impact of

Embryonic harvesting and freezing is considered an ethical dilemma and morally unacceptable. Karen Capato reserved sperm for in-vitro fertilization posthumous and reared twins as a result. In this instance, technology was used after the death of a spouse to create life posthumous and the use of such is considered an act of God. “The Bible mentions in its parables that we should not to disrupt a life” (E. Horning, personal communication, January 31, 2013). Manipulating genetics

Nelson & Meyer discusses coming to a compromise on the disposal of the extracorporeal human embryos (EHEs). One should not link the extracorporeal human embryos to the possibility of developing into a real human. As long as the human embryo is outside of the human body, it does not have the potential to develop into a child. Religion can affect a persons’ beliefs and morals to the point where compromise is not possible. It is agreed that disposal should be done respectfully but where and how is the question. Nelson &

However this paper is designed to focus on other morally problematic aspects of fetal research. The first is that fetal research as it is now carried out today in the United States violates the human dignity of the unborn through violating agreed upon principles governing organ donations generally. Secondly the legal and moral restrictions imposed on fetal research not only have failed to secure ethical research but the nature of the research itself gives an incentive to morally problematic behavior.

In reproductive technology, ethical decisions should focus on the good of the children, their individual parents, and families, and let us not forget the good health and common good of the larger society (Morrison, 2009). Exercising the principles of ethics can assist in finding common ground in NRT. Bioethical issues include the appropriate use of pre-implantation genetic diagnostic screening, use, storage and destruction of excess IVF embryos, and research involving embryos. “NRT research requires human participants, donors and donated embryos, oocytes and sperm” (Adelaide Centre for Bioethics and Culture, 2013). Ethics committees have detailed expected behaviors/regulations that are supposed to be followed if participating in this type of medical treatment. In fact, advisory groups and researchers have encouraged participants to disclose the fact of gamete donation to the offspring, and some clinics will aid in assisting future contact if all members agree. (American Society for Reproductive Medicine, 2014). As a minimum, donors, and recipients have an obligation to disclose non-identifying medical information. Should a medical issue arise in the future, all participants have a

Bioethical issues include life-prolonging treatments, organ transplantation, medical physician-assisted suicide, abortion, new reproductive technologies, and recent advances in genetics diagnosis and therapy. Such issues often prove to be controversial and can leave us questioning a lot. New medical treatments and technologies often do not come with sufficient precedents to guide our moral reasoning where the life of a woman is in danger. Illegal abortions are common worldwide and carry a high risk of complications, including severe bleeding, infertility, or death often occur. One of the most common reasons for abortions at the latter stage of pregnancy is detection that the fetus has a serious genetic defect. With currently approved technology, these procedures can only be done later in pregnancy. Another common reason is that the woman is young or in denial about her pregnancy, and does not seek an abortion until she is unable to hide it.

An issue that has caused great legal debate is the freezing of eggs and embryos. Freezing allows savings eggs or embryos for later implantation; not all are used. However, frozen embryos and eggs generally have a lower success rate. The question arises of what happens to them if the couple decides to divorce, or one or both of them dies? These situations have been decided through court determinations. In 1987, the status of frozen embryos was brought before the Victorian courts with the case of Mr and Mrs Rios, who had died in a plane crash. The embryos from Mr and Mrs Rios had been frozen in 1981. There were many ethical and moral concerns regarding this case. Should the embryos remain frozen indefinitely, be donated, or kept for research? The Infertility (Medical Procedures) Act

For the past decade, fetal tissue research has raised worldwide ethical, legal, and social controversy. The primary moral question raised by this practice is whether it is justifiable to “disaggregate living human embryos in order to derive pluripotent cells for purposes of basic research that may someday yield regenerative therapy”(Snead 41). The moral questioning does not arise from what benefits the tissues could possess, but rather how the tissues are acquired because the primary source is from electively aborted fetuses. Neither abortion nor fetal tissue research are illegal according to the Uniform Anatomical Gift Act, which allows for the use of dead fetus bodies for research, therapeutic purposes, or transplantation. Many people in

The author of this paper has selected a health care colleague Mrs. T.R, to interview on the ethical beliefs, philosophy and worldview about the in-vitro fertilization, embryo harvesting and posthumous conception. Mrs. T.R, was born and brought up in an Indian Hindu family and immigrated to USA in 2000. She is working as a Registered Nurse in Illinois. She has conceived a child using In Vitro Fertilization, because she was diagnosed with Breast Cancer at the age of 27. The interview responses of Mrs. T.R, to the questions regarding Embryo Harvesting and Freezing, and rights of children born to posthumous conception in the light of Supreme Court ruling on the Karen Capato Case, are summarized in this paper.

The principles of ethics can assist in finding a middle ground on reproductive technologies by forcing the healthcare provider to consider first the patient and their well-being above all else, yet keeping in consideration the benefits and morality of the care they are giving. More often than not, there are more than two sides to every argument, especially when it comes to the latest reproductive technologies. “To obtain justifiable resolutions of these

How do you tell your child that he was conceived after his father died in a car accident? Technology today is “improving the prospects of posthumous procreation, that is, having children after one’s death” (Rae, 2009, p. 181). This delicate issue is defined as a production of offspring arising after death (dictionary.com). This new, successful technology presents one of the most challenging ethical issues to tackle in healthcare. There are so many unanswered questions when discussing this topic. Should it be allowed? Who decides whether sperm can be collected? When should it be used to conceive (Kahn, 2009)? Above all, should a man be forced to become a parent? In American society, we do not force men or women to become parents being that they can decide for themselves. Conversely, one can decide for them in the event they have passed away. This deems to be an issue of contradiction which is why I take a stance against posthumous procreation.

IVF raises many of these difficult moral issues. If the above conceptions about the nature of ethics were correct, however, discussion of these issues would either be futile (because morality is a matter of personal choice or opinion) or superfluous (because morality is what a divine or secular authority says it is) (Walters 23). In this paper, I want to suggest that it is not only possible, but also necessary to inquire into the ethics of such practices as IVF because the fact that we can do something does not mean that we ought to do it.