Both Oars In In Pursuit of Life

Feb 20, 2009

The pursuit of life has captured a lot of headlines lately.  We have been shocked by the details of the artificially assisted birth of octuplets to a mother of six.  Just before Christmas, parents of teenage IVF twins expressed lament for the twin’s nine embryonic siblings still in cryostasis.  This past week’s Time [2/9] featured a story on advances in stem cell research while the New York Times [2/17] warned this week of the mounting concerns over the possible connection between IVF and rare genetic diseases.  At the center of these stories for many is the morally questionable practice of producing human life outside of the body in petri dishes for later implantation and/or experimentation.

 

In the case of the octuplets, news stories vacillated from focusing on the perceived recklessness of a doctor who would implant so many embryos at once to outing a mother who, although she already had six children, seemingly intentionally risked her life to have more—many more. While we must keep in mind the sanctity of human life and meet each arrival with joy, there is little doubt that this spectacle shed a revealing light on the practice of IVF as a medical cure for barren parents.  The desire to be parents is understandable, but should babies be something one can order up like pay per view?  How long before genetic previews are granted to hopeful parents with specific interests?

 

Alice Park’s February 9th Time article, How the Coming Revolution in Stem Cell Research Could Save Your Life, failed to mention that embryonic stem cell research takes life to potentially improve life.  She preferred to focus on the emotional journey of Dr. Melton’s personal quest for perfecting stem cell assisted therapy for ailments such as Type I diabetes—which both of his children have.  All parents can understand what drives Dr. Melton, but many of us can also see why using human embryos is wrong—a life for a life is unacceptable.

 

To illustrate how Dr. Melton and those who condone the use of embryonic stem cell research see it differently, Park recounts a debate between the Dr. Melton and Richard Doerflinger, the U.S. Catholic Bishops’ veteran advocate on life matters. As she tells it, “Melton asked Doerflinger if he considered a day-old embryo and a 6-year-old to be moral equivalents; when Doerflinger responded yes, Melton countered by asking why society accepts the freezing of embryos but not the freezing of 6-year-olds.”  It seems Dr. Melton is as well-schooled in sophistry as he is science. Clearly those who see an embryo and six old as moral equivalents would not freeze either one.  Society is often slow in discerning moral issues—that is no defense of an immoral act.

 

The real good news in Ms. Park’s article is that researchers may have found a way to produce pluripotent stem cells without involving the discarding of embryos. Unfortunately, no credit is given for the possibility that Mr. Bush’s ban on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research may have caused scientist to seek a better way—one that involves neither killing embryos nor inducing women to sell their eggs.  Rather, Dr. Melton still hopes President Obama will end the “silliness” by repealing Mr. Bush’s 2001 executive order. The protection of human dignity is never silly.

 

Tuesday, February 17, the New York Times carried an article on the possibility that IVF procedure, specifically the injection of a sperm into an egg and/or the culturing of early human life in a petri dish, may impact gene expression, thereby increasing the occurrence of in IVF progeny of rare childhood diseases and other diseases that may not show up until old age. According to the article, data is growing to suggest that the “manipulation and culturing of embryos is a contributing factor” to problems in gene expression. The very words themselves—manipulating and culturing—when applied to humans should be enough to make one pause, let alone the threat of health concerns.

 

It would seem that science likes to make a mess of things first and then back away rather than avoid the mess altogether.  Much like a child driven by insatiable inquisitiveness ignores parental warnings and touches a hot stove to see if indeed it is hot, some scientists charge ahead where angels fear to tread for good reason. 

 

In the pursuit of life, well-intentioned parents and researchers alike must acknowledge that IVF and embryonic stem cell research inherently involve the discarding, selecting and manipulation of embryos. Dr. Melton, would you put a 6 year old to death to save a teenager?  Does age matter? Would any parent knowingly drive away from home with half their children? Absolutely, not! Tell me, then, why IVF continues and you and your colleagues are eagerly waiting for the ban to be lifted on embryonic stem cell research. Even the pursuit of the greatest of goods is still subject to the rule that the ends do not justify the means. Unfortunately, the Vatican’s recently published Dignitas Personae [12/12/2008], the clearest article on the moral shortfalls of IVF, did not make the cover of Time or get a banner headlines on CNN or Fox.