Abstract:
This paper
examines Assisted Reproductive Technologies (ART) through a composite case study.
Dilemmas identified include ageing, harms and risks of ART, infertility vs
God’s command to procreate, disembodiment of sexuality and begetting, humans
using technology to usurp God, when does personhood occur, ‘spare’ embryos,
commodification of the donor, surrogate and child, making vs begetting, the
selection of a “designer” child, idolatrous expectations on children, and the psychosocial
development of the child. I take a precautionary stance towards ART. ART is not
very cost-effective and has many risks. Although procreation without sex is not
the ideal, ART can be done as a restorative procedure so long as the genetic
link between the parents and the child is not disrupted. The “biopsychosocialspiritual”
needs of all parties should be addressed. No party should be seen as a
commercial commodity. Lives already created should not be destroyed. Jesus is our
hope, not the child.
Eve is a 34y.o. single woman who comes
in to see me, a General Practitioner, to enquire about egg freezing. She is of
Chinese ethnicity and her father, Dan, owns a large multinational company. Her
brother, John, is married and has several daughters. John has poor health and
his wife is postmenopausal. Dan is keen to get a male heir to the company, as
the continuation of the family name is important in the Chinese culture, and places
a lot of pressure on Eve to get married and have a child. While Eve is keen to
have a child, she never had a boyfriend in her life. As a Christian, she feels
highly conflicted. She knows I am also a Christian and wants me to give her my medical,
ethical and theological opinions.
Eve
faces the dilemma of biological ageing and decline in fertility. Hewlett[1]
found that nearly 9/10 young women are confident they could get pregnant in
their 40s, but in fact, a woman’s fertility begins to decline at age 27.[2]
If Eve does not freeze her eggs now, her egg may no longer be worthwhile
freezing, because the response to ovarian stimulation and the quality of the
egg is better for those younger than 35 years old.[3]
The most cited reason for women to freeze their eggs is the lack of a partner.[4]
There are many possibilities about what can happen in the next few years. If Eve
finds a partner in the next few years, she is likely to conceive naturally. If
she does not, and does not utilise ART, she will miss out on the opportunity to
have a child. However, if she uses ART to conceive without a partner, it will
be extremely difficult bringing up a child as a single parent. If she utilises
the eggs after menopause, she may no longer have enough energy to bring a child
up and is at a higher risk of dying before the child grows up.[5]
Another
dilemma is the medical risk and harms of the actual ovulation induction and egg
freezing. First, she needs to use hormones to stimulate egg production. Ovarian
hyperstimulation syndrome is a rare but dangerous complication of ovarian
stimulation.[6]
Furthermore, the risk of breast cancer and endometrial cancer following
exposure to ovarian stimulation medications is currently inconclusive.[7]
Egg collection involves passing a long needle passing through the vaginal wall.
Despite the risks of anaesthetic complications, structural damage, excessive
bleeding and infections,[8]
some women still want to do it “to avoid future regret.”[9]
Interestingly, research shows that most women who freeze their eggs never end
up utilising them.[10]
Mesen et al.[11]
concludes that the most cost-effective age for freezing oocytes is 37 years. In
reality, the mean age people freeze their eggs is also at 37 years.[12]
Looking
at this from principle ethics, although egg freezing is advertised as a way of
enhancing women’s reproductive freedom,[13]
I do not think Eve can have true autonomy in the procedure because there is not
enough known, eg. long-term effects of ARTs on the patient or the child who
result from them,[14]
for her to be truly informed. There is harm done on her body, so egg freezing
goes against the principle of nonmaleficence. There is no beneficence or
medical benefit[15]
in undergoing this procedure. The possibility for positive consequence will only
come if she utilise the eggs. From a justice point of view, ART is not
egalitarian.[16]
Those who undergo ART are usually socio-economically advantaged.[17]
People pay $5,800 for social egg freezing.[18]
It is not a medically necessary treatment as most women who freeze their eggs do
not have anything medically wrong.[19]
It is not possible for the health system, with its limited resources,[20]
to fund every person in the world for this procedure. Furthermore, ART takes up
a lot of resources and gives a relatively low rate of success as the actual
live birth rates per embryo transfer is less than 50%.[21]
Theologically,
egg freezing is not unbiblical. However, theological issues will arise when Eve
accesses her eggs to undergo IVF. Eve can do some self-exploration on the topic
of IVF, eg. reading books such as Dr Megan Best’s “Fearfully and Wonderfully
Made,” to form her own theological opinions first, because there is no point
freezing the eggs if she does not think she will proceed with IVF. If she decides
to freeze her eggs, I recommend doing it in two years’ time, as her personal
circumstances may change later and it is not cost-effective to put her health
at risk for something she is highly unlikely to utilise.
Eve decided not to proceed with egg
freezing. A year later Eve returns to me. She is now more conflicted about her
Christian faith because she had entered into a lesbian relationship with Miriam,
a 38y.o. woman. They are both keen to have a child. They are contemplating on
whether to impregnate Eve with de-identified donor sperm or to impregnate Miriam
with John’s sperm so the offspring will be genetically related to both of them.
I believe a reputable fertility specialist is in a better position to give them
advice than I am, so I referred them on. Medical assessment reveals that Eve
has a congenital uterine malformation and cannot carry a pregnancy. Eve comes
back to me depressed and angry. She feels very angry with God, because she
cannot control her sexual orientation, and now she finds out she cannot carry a
baby!
Infertility
often comes as a crisis, because most people just assume they are able to have
children when they want to try for one. When they realise they are infertile,
they also realise they have no control over what happens.[22]
Although infertility is treated largely as a medical or social crisis,[23]
it also gives rise to profound emotional and spiritual distress. It is a
“biopsychosocialspiritual” crisis! Infertile women may feel part of being a
woman is being able to be a mother, and she cannot do what she was made to do.[24]
From the Bible, we can see how distressed some women are about infertility. For
instance, in Genesis 30:1, Rachel said to Jacob, “give me children or I’ll
die!” In 1Samuel 1:7-8, Hanna was provoked by another to the point where she
wept and could not eat. Friends and relatives of the childless couples may hold
judgemental attitudes and make many assumptions. Professional counselling may
be needed to cope with the stresses associated with infertility.[25]
Spiritually,
people sometimes describe infertility as the death of a dream, a loss of hope,[26]
and even a kind of “dying.” They encounter a deep confrontation of meaning and
belief.[27]
The question of “Can you honestly say you are content to accept whatever God’s
will is?” comes up.[28]
Furthermore, Christians who interpret “be fruitful and
increase in number (Genesis 1:28)” as a command can feel guilty if they are not
able to perform this command. Some Christian go so far as to argue that one has
to procreate using whatever means there is available in our current technology.[29] However, not all couples are able to bear
children, and it is repeatedly acknowledged in Scripture. Nevertheless,
children within marriage are presented as the norm, and it is through them that
the image of God is perpetuated (Genesis 5:1).[30] The Roman Catholic teachings say that the
life-partnership of marriage is subservient to the procreation of children.[31] Barth[32] insists the opposite is true, that marriage
is a life-partnership and does not depend on the coexistence of children to be
valid. This is supported by the narrative on the creation of Eve in Genesis
2:18-22.[33]
Some
infertile people wonder whether they are being punished by God for their sins. However,
we cannot make a simple direct connection between suffering and sin, eg. the
man born blind (John 9), and Elizabeth and Zechariah, who were “righteous
before God” and yet infertile (Luke 1:6-7).[34]
So we should not assume “infertility is punishment on us from God,” nor should
we conclude that “God is bound to bless us with fertility if we are obedient,
godly Christians.”[35]
Meanwhile, the church environment does not help either. People who do not have
children often feel “marginalized within faith communities that place a great
deal of emphasis on families and family life.” Ryan suggests that “self-acceptance
is a critical moment in the spiritual journey through infertility,”[36]
and that “transformative spirituality in the face of infertility” is built on
an “awareness of the constant companionship of God in the experience of
disappointment and despair.”[37]
Suffering is inevitable in a fallen world. Although suffering is a test for
character, it can destroy us as easily as it can help us grow,[38]
so it is important to pray for the strength to accept suffering as part of the
obedience to God’s calling as opposed to trying to end suffering at all costs.[39]
Some people will eventually have to accept that child-bearing is not God’s
current plan for them.[40]
Some
view infertility as a medical disease which needs treatment to allow for
physical wellbeing. However, the physical impossibility for some people to bear
a child due to sterility suggest that reproduction cannot be a universal right,
because no-one has the power to make it possible for everyone, [41]
and many people even see childlessness as a blessing by choice![42]
Furthermore, a ‘rights talk’ is not biblical as children are seen as a gift
from God.[43]
Psalm 127 reminds us that the ability to bear children is God's gift and
subject to God's control. Yet, these days, entrepreneurs see infertility as big
business and ART goes beyond just fixing what is broken. Services are provided
for those with ‘social infertility’: single parents, same-sex couples, and even
those who can have a child but prefers someone else to do the hard work. This
sometimes requires the donation of sperm, eggs and wombs![44]
There are ART service providers that “cater exclusively for the LGBTI community,”
eg. Rainbow Fertility. However, service providers targeting the LGBTI are not
necessarily “nonjudgmental.” Stammer[45]
points out that “all healthcare professionals, regardless of their spiritual
tradition or lack of one, possess beliefs and commitments, which in turn
influence their actions.” Personally, I would refer according to reputability.
A few months later, Eve decides to shift
her focus on God and end her lesbian relationship with Miriam. She describes
another disturbing conflict to me. Miriam is still keen for a child. Miriam is very
conflicted as her Orthodox Jew family disowned her because of her
homosexuality,[46]
and considers a child conceived through donor insemination as a ‘bastard.’ They
will not help her in any way.[47]
Meanwhile, John has just been diagnosed with a terminal illness, and Dan
becomes desperate. Dan offers to give Miriam financial support for the ART
treatments and the costs of bringing the child up. However, this is on the
condition that Miriam uses John’s sperm, undergoes IVF so she can select for a
male child under preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD), abort the child if the
18-20 week morphology scan shows abnormalities, and the child is to inherit
both his family name and business.
It is not
surprising that Eve feels disturbed here. Miriam is being seen by Dan as a
reproductive commodity, a cattle whose job is to produce the designer child
that Dan desires.[48]
The substantial financial reward that Dan offers is a form of coercion.[49]
If Miriam accepts the offer, she is essentially selling herself, similar to the
women in developing countries who choose to act as surrogates in order to get
out of the slums and get their own children educated to the university level.[50]
Dan is exploiting Miriam’s vulnerability here. People with intense desire for a
child are very vulnerable and can easily become a victim to fraud.[51]
Miriam might not notice it but she is paying a big price. Dan is placing Miriam
in harm. Miriam can get pregnant with intrauterine insemination (IUI), but Dan
wants her to undergo the more invasive IVF so she can get a PGD and select
embryos based on gender. PGD for sex-selection is illegal in Australia,[52]
so she has to travel to a country where it is legal. However, sex-selective
abortions in India, China and South Korea have already been causing major sex
ratio distortions due to sexism in these cultures, and Dan is adding to the
problem.[53]
Miriam will have an
extremely high-risk pregnancy. She is of an advanced maternal age. More than
30% of ART pregnancies turn into a multiple pregnancy which in of itself is
high risk.[54]
Single ART pregnancies still demonstrate increased rates of perinatal
complications.[55]
Her child will be at increased risk of major structural birth defects such as
cardiac defects, orofacial clefts, oesophageal and anorectal atresia and
hypospadias.[56]
FINRRAGE (Feminists International Network of Resistance to Reproductive and
Genetic Engineering) argues against ART from a feminist position, arguing that techniques
for assisting human reproduction bears a striking resemblance to techniques
used to facilitate reproduction in livestock. Female animals are turned into
machines for producing “superior” animals, reducing the animal to a
reproductive commodity.[57]
It is the woman that carries the most burdens in ART,[58]
and ART treats the women’s body as biological machines that can be manipulated
and controlled.[59]
A
hotly debated theological issue in ART is the disembodiment of sexuality and
begetting. Both male and female has the same unique God-given status as
image-bearers, but different sexual roles.[60]
Genesis 1:26-28 and 2:23-25 tells us that normal childbearing is a relational
process which occurs within the covenantal relationship of marriage.[61]
The Catholics believe procreation needs to occur in the context of a loving
monogamous marriage through an act of sexual intercourse, and having sex
without an intention for procreation is wrong, eg. using contraception is wrong.
The Protestants believe that although sexual acts and procreation must occur
within the context of a marriage, not every sexual act have to lead to
procreation.[62] Some Christians and Jews view semen collection
through masturbation as sinful.[63]
There are ways to get around masturbation in sperm collection if the pair is
husband and wife, eg. using a ‘holy condom’ to collect the sperm during
intercourse.[64]
Another
reason the Catholics argue against ART is because they view procreation without
sex as sinful,[65]
and when people seek ways to reproduce asexually, they are using technology to
get around God’s original intention for marriage. Protestants tend to vary in
their opinions on whether procreation must occur through a sexual act or not. The
Tower of Babel narrative describes humanity’s tendency towards using technology
to usurp God.[66]
Indeed, technology can at times be an instrument of alienation rather than
restoration; it can cost people much in time and money and pain and
inconvenience, and leave them worse off than they were before.[67]
Wyatt[68]
believes “the ethics of art restoration” can be practiced, where the restorer
is not free to change or improve the masterpiece they are trying to restore,
but to follow the artist’s (ie. God’s) original intention, and using IVF to
assist an infertile couple to have their own genetically related child is a
form of restorative technology.[69]
A
question under constant debate in ART is, “When does personhood occur?” Most
Christians and embryologists believe that life begins at fertilisation.[70]
Many Christians use Psalm 139 to argue for life beginning at the time of an
embryo. God had been involved with the psalmist’s life right from the beginning
when he was an “embryo.”[71]
So this passage reminds us of the wonders of each human life, right from the
very beginning when we were still unformed. Other definitions include 14 days,
where twinning is no longer possible,[72]
implantation,[73]
and quickening.[74]
Some define it according to viability, the ability to survive outside the womb,
which is usually 22+ weeks. Most Western federal courts define this as the time
of birth.[75]
Some define it as sentience, which is capacity to feel pain, but this includes
higher-ordered animals too.[76]
Singer[77]
is famously known for declaring that “life without consciousness is of no worth
at all.” He proposes that the worth of life varies depending on the functioning
of the cerebral cortex and recommends “mercy killing” for a life that is “not
worth living.”[78]
One’s
definition of personhood determines how one argues about “spare” embryos and
abortions. “Spare” embryos are those originally produced for IVF procedures
which were not used. They are destined to be discarded, so some would ask, “if
we bring about their death by using them in research, could we say that nothing
is thereby lost?”[79]
The utilitarian argument is that the lives saved by research would far outweigh
the value of embryonic life lost.[80]
If one believes life starts at fertilisation then killing “spare” embryos is
unethical. It is hard to see how a Christian ethic that regards others as
valuable because they are neighbours whom God has given us to love could accept
the purely instrumental use of some neighbours for the sake of others.[81]
Another dilemma is the decision about which embryos to keep and which to
discard. This decision has to be made within three days after fertilisation.
Best[82]
is not aware of any method of embryo morphology assessment that has proven to
be effective in predicting the viability of IVF embryos. The ‘extended culture’
only gives people two extra days to decide. PGD allows for genetic analysis
before the embryo is transferred. Those who believe personhood begins at implantation
would see the discarding the embryo prior to embryo transfer as ethical and morally
superior to abortion.[83]
Likewise, those who believe personhood begins outside the womb would see
abortion as ethical.
I
take the view that life begins at fertilisation, while we were still
“unformed.” So taking a life is unethical, even that of an unimplanted embryo.
Each human is made in the image of God and that alone is the reason for the
sanctity of life. Therefore, the value of each human life is not calculated in
materialistic or functional terms, and the weak and vulnerable ones such as the
embryos, fetuses, infants, people with disability, people with dementia and
people in the vegetative state should be protected.[84]
They are neighbours whom God has given us to love, not to eliminate.[85]
There are multiple promises for redemption and commands to defend the
defenceless. [86]
Destroying a neighbour in an attempt to solve a problem is immoral.[87]
Therefore, we should avoid creating “spare” embryos. It is also important to
take an eschatological view towards human lives. Wyatt says,[88]
“We are treating someone now in the light of what they are going to be… This is
why we can still respect and treat with dignity even the most tragically
damaged of human beings.”
Dan
is placing too much hope in his “designer child.” He is using screening
technology for ‘quality control’.[89]
The selection of children with certain genotypes is inconsistent with the ideal
of parents having unconditional love for their children.[90]
To exert such control over the beginning of life is to treat children as
commodities.[91]
The child being made, not begotten,[92]
and begins to resemble product of our wills rather than the offspring of our
passion.[93]
Our stance towards the child is instrumental.[94]
O’Donovan[95]
argues that those whom we beget are like us and can be in a relationship of
equals with us. Things that we make, by contrast, are in a sense alienated from
us. Here, technology is used to impose idolatrous cultural values of the
parents onto the very bodies and intellects of their chosen children.[96]
The statement “our children are our hope for the future” is a form of idolatry.
Jesus is our hope for the future. Our children are destined for suffering and
death like the rest of us.[97]
The child who was
wanted for all the wrong reasons is pressured to live up to parental expectations
and be “the perfect child.”[98]
This has profound implications for family relationships and the psychosocial
development of the child.[99]
The family is one remaining institution where status is given by birth, not
earned.[100]
With gamete donation and surrogacy, lines of kinship becomes very blurry. Up to
five “parents” can be involved: two genetic parents, a gestational mother, two
rearing parents.[101]
The child can be cut off from either half or all of its genetic heritage.[102]
Can the children comprehend, without anxiety, that mothers make babies and give
them away for money?[103]
A child with clouded genetic heritage has a more difficult time achieving a
secure personal identity.[104]
This ambiguity can in turn lead to psychosocial harm.[105]
Although ‘third
parties’ contributing to reproduction can be found in the Old Testament, eg.
Hagar, it is still different from the donor gametes in the modern sense, as the
biblical ‘donors’ still had a role in raising the child.[106]
In modern days, the gamete donor is involved in child-bearing without the
intention of fulfilling their parental responsibilities.[107]
Some donor offspring describe feeling such a strong pain of ‘genetic
bewilderment’ that they feel angry they were ever born.[108]
There should be ethical standards which protect and strengthen positive outcomes
for children. Those rearing the child should possess average or adequate
psychological and social resources for childrearing.[109]
Miriam’s family disowned her so she lacks social support. John, the gamete
donor, will die soon. Miriam will be financially dependent on Dan to raise a
child. I believe Dan’s offer is unethical as he treats all parties as
commodities and the child will have a clouded genetic heritage.
To
conclude, I take a precautionary stance towards ART and hold the following
views: 1) It is important for those seeking assistance to be made fully aware
of the risks of this technology and not hold unrealistic expectations. Social
egg freezing is hard to justify as most women do not end up accessing the eggs.
ART takes up a lot of resources and gives a relatively low success rate. 2) It
is important to address the “biopsychosocialspiritual” needs of the infertile
couple and avoid marginalising people who do not have children. Some people
will eventually have to accept that childbearing is not part of God’s plans for
their lives. 3) Sex and procreation belongs to marriage, but not every act of
sex need be for procreation. Although procreating without sex is not the ideal,
ART can be done as a restorative procedure so long as the genetic link between
the parents and the child is not disrupted. 4) Third party donors and surrogacy
should be avoided as children with clouded genetic heritage are more likely to
develop psychological problems. 5) No party should be seen as a commercial
commodity: no one should be coerced into donating gametes or acting as a
surrogate, and the child should not be selected based on “desirable traits”. 6)
Life begins at fertilisation, so one should take care not to produce excess
embryos, as lives that have already been created need to be protected. 7) Parental
resources for childrearing should be assessed and the psychological development
of child should be monitored closely. 8) It is important to remember that Jesus
is our hope for the future and not place idolatrous expectations on children.
Bibliography:
Aubusson, Kate. “National guidelines
oppose push to allow parents to choose sex of IVF babies.” Sydney Morning Herald, April 20, 2017. Accessed October 14,
2018.
https://www.smh.com.au/healthcare/national-guidelines-oppose-push-to-allow-parents-to-choose-sex-of-ivf-babies-20170420-gvoe6v.html.
Barth, Karl. Church
Dogmatics: III.4 The Doctrine of Creation. Edited by G. W. Bromiley and
T.F. Torrance. London: T&T Clark, 2009.
Beauchamp,
T. L. ‘The “four principles” approach.’ In Principles
of Health Care Ethics, edited by R. Gillon, 3-12. Chichester: Wiley, 1994.
Best,
Megan. Fearfully and Wonderfully Made:
Ethics and the beginning of human life. Kingsford: Matthias Media, 2012.
Burke,
Jason. “India’s surrogate mothers face new rules to restrict ‘pot of gold’.” The Guardian, July 30, 2010. Accessed
October 14, 2018. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jul/30/india-surrogate-mothers-law.
Callahan, Sidney. “The Ethical
Challenge of the New Reproductive Technology.” In On Moral Medicine: Theological Perspectives in Medical Ethics,
edited by M. Therese Lysaught et. al., 858-865. Grand Rapids: William B.
Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2012.
Clouser, K. Danner and Bernard Gert.
“A Critique of Principlism.” In Meaning and Medicine: A Reader in the
Philosophy of Health Care, edited by James Lindermann Nelson and Hilde
Lindermann Nelson, 156-166. New York: Routledge, 1999.
DeClaisse-Walford,
Nancy, Rolf A. Jacobson, and Beth LaNeel Tanner. The Book of Psalms. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing
Company, 2014.
Encyclical
of Paul VI Rome, 25 July 1968, “Humanae Vitae: On the Regulation of Birth.”
Accessed October 12, 2018,
http://w2.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae.html.
Genea.
“Genea’s success rates.” Accessed October 14, 2018.
https://www.genea.com.au/assisted-conception/success-rates?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI6tK5uMeF3gIVFHZgCh3nWAxBEAAYASAAEgJc3vD_BwE.
Genea.
“Genea Horizon brochure.” Accessed October 14, 2018.
https://www.genea.com.au/GEN/media/Genea/PDF/Genea-Horizon-brochure.pdf.
Genea. Your Fertility Journey: brochure for
patients. Sydney: Genea, 2017.
Goldingay,
John. Psalms Volume 3: Psalms 90-150.
Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006.
Hammarberg,
Karin et al. “Reproductive experiences of women who cryopreserve oocytes for
non-medical reasons.” Human Reproduction
32 (2017): 575-581.
Harris,
John. On Cloning. London: Routledge,
2004.
Hauerwas,
Stanley. Suffering Presence: Theological
Reflections on Medicine, the Mentally Handicapped, and the Church. Notre
Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1986.
Hewlett,
Sylvia Ann. Creating a Life: Professional
Women and the Quest for Children. New York: Miramax, 2002.
Hodes-Wertz,
B. et al. “What do reproductive-age women who undergo oocyte cryopreservation
think about the process as a means to preserve fertility?” Fertility and Sterility 100 (2013): 1343–1349.
IVF Australia. “IVFAustralia success
rates.” Accessed October 14, 2018. https://www.ivf.com.au/ivf-success-rates.
Jones, D.
Gareth. “Christian Responses to Challenging Developments in Biomedical Science:
The Case of In Vitro Fertilisation.” Science
and Christian Belief 26 (2014): 143-164.
Lauritzen,
Paul. “Whose Bodies? Which Selves? Appeals to Embodiment in Assessments of
Reproductive Technology.” In On Moral
Medicine: Theological Perspectives in Medical Ethics, edited by M. Therese
Lysaught et. al., 850-857. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing
Company, 2012.
Lerner-Geva,
L. J. Rabinovici and B. Lunenfeld. “Ovarian stimulation: is there a long-term
risk for ovarian, breast and endometrial cancer?” Women’s Health 6 (2010): 831-839.
Linkeviciute,
Alma et al. “Oocyte cryopreservation beyond cancer: tools for ethical
reflection.” Journal of Assisted
Reproduction and Genetics 32 (2015): 1211-1220.
Matthews,
Kenneth A. The American Commentary:
Genesis 1-11:26. Nashville: B&H Publishing Group, 1996.
McWhinnie,
A. Who am I? Leamington Spa Idreos
Education Trust, 2006.
Meilaender,
Gilbert. Bioethics: A Primer for
Christians. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2013.
Mesen, T.B. et al. “Optimal timing for elective egg freezing.” Fertility and Sterility 103
(2015):1551–1556.
Messer,
Neil. Respecting Life: Theology and
Bioethics. London: SCM Press, 2011.
O’Donovan,
Oliver. Begotten or Made? Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1984.
Panitch,
Vida. “Assisted Reproduction and Distributive Justice.” Bioethics 29 (2015): 108-117.
Pritchard, Natasha et al. “Characteristics and circumstances of
women in Australia who cryopreserved their oocytes for non-medical
indications.” Journal of Reproductive and
Infant Psychology 35 (2017): 108-118.
Rae, Scott
B. and Paul M. Cox. Bioethics: A
Christian Approach in a Pluralistic Age. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans
Publishing Company, 1999.
Reddy,
U.M. et al. “Infertility, assisted reproductive technology, and adverse
pregnancy outcomes Executive summary of a National Institute of Child Health
and Human Development workshop.” Obstetrics
and Gynaecology 109 (2007): 967-977.
Reefhuis, J. et al. “Assisted reproductive technology and major
structural birth defects in the United States.” Human Reproduction 24 (2009): 360-366.
Ryan,
Maura A. “Faith and Infertility.” In On
Moral Medicine: Theological Perspectives in Medical Ethics, edited by M.
Therese Lysaught et. al., 865-869. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing
Company, 2012.
Schenker,
Joseph G. “Human reproduction: Jewish perspectives.” Gynaecological Endocrinology 29 (2013): 945-948.
Sharp,
Richard R. et al. “Moral attitudes and beliefs among couples pursuing PGD for
sex selection.” Reproductive BioMedicine
Online 21 (2010): 838-847.
Singer,
Peter. Rethinking Life and Death. New
York: St Martin’s Griffin, 1994.
Sloane,
Andrew. Vulnerability and Care: Christian
Reflections on the Philosophy of Medicine. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark,
2016.
Sloane,
Andrew. At home in a strange land: using
the Old Testament in Christian ethics. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers,
2008.
Stammers, Trevor. “The NHS – No Place for Conscience.” Catholic Medical Quarterly 63 (2013).
Accessed October 6, 2018.
http://www.cmq.org.uk/CMQ/2013/Aug/nhs_no_place_for_conscience.html.
Tsafrir,
A. et al. “Ovarian stimulation for oocyte cryopreservation for prevention of
age-related fertility loss: one in five is a low responder.” Gynecological Endocrinology
31(2015):779–782.
Verhey,
Allen. “A.R.T., Ethics, and the Bible.” In On
Moral Medicine: Theological Perspectives in Medical Ethics, edited by M.
Therese Lysaught et. al., 870-893. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing
Company, 2012.
Whittaker,
Andrew. “Media debates and ‘ethical publicity’ on social sex selection through
preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) technology in Australia.” Culture, Health & Sexuality 17
(2015): 962-976.
Wyatt, John. Matters of Life
& Death: Human dilemmas in the light of the Christian faith.
Nottingham: IVP, 2009.
[1] Sylvia Ann Hewlett, Creating a Life: Professional Women and the
Quest for Children (New York: Miramax, 2002).
[2] Megan Best, Fearfully and Wonderfully Made: Ethics and
the beginning of human life (Kingsford: Matthias Media, 2012), 270.
[3] A. Tsafrir, et al.
“Ovarian stimulation for oocyte cryopreservation for prevention of age-related
fertility loss: one in five is a low responder,” Gynecological Endocrinology 31(2015):779.
[4] B. Hodes-Wertz, et al, “What
do reproductive-age women who undergo oocyte cryopreservation think about the
process as a means to preserve fertility?” Fertility
and Sterility 100 (2013): 1346; Karin Hammarberg, et al. “Reproductive
experiences of women who cryopreserve oocytes for non-medical reasons,” Human Reproduction 32 (2017): 576. This
is contrary to the stereotype of women deliberately delaying childbearing to
advance their careers.
[5] Hammarberg, et al.
“Reproductive experiences of women who cryopreserve oocytes for non-medical
reasons,” 579.
[6] Best, Fearfully and Wonderfully Made, 334.
[7] L. Lerner-Geva, J.
Rabinovici and B. Lunenfeld. “Ovarian stimulation: is there a long-term risk
for ovarian, breast and endometrial cancer?” Women’s Health 6 (2010): 831-839.
[8] Genea. Your Fertility Journey: brochure for
patients (Sydney: Genea, 2017), 6-7.
[9] Natasha Pritchard, et al.
“Characteristics and circumstances of women in Australia who cryopreserved
their oocytes for non-medical indications.” Journal
of Reproductive and Infant Psychology 35 (2017): 114.
[10] Hammarberg, et al.
“Reproductive experiences of women who cryopreserve oocytes for non-medical
reasons,” 580.
[11] T.B. Mesen, et al.
“Optimal timing for elective egg freezing,” Fertility
and Sterility 103 (2015):1551.
[12] Hammarberg, et al.
“Reproductive experiences of women who cryopreserve oocytes for non-medical
reasons,” 577.
[13] Alma Linkeviciute, et al.
“Oocyte cryopreservation beyond cancer: tools for ethical reflection,” Journal of Assisted Reproduction and
Genetics 32 (2015): 1218.
[14] Scott B. Rae, and Paul M.
Cox. Bioethics: A Christian Approach in a
Pluralistic Age (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company,
1999), 54; Genea. Your Fertility Journey,
21. Even the Genea brochure gives this warning.
[15] Tom L. Beauchamp, “The
‘Four Principles’ Approach,” in Meaning
and Medicine: A Reader in the Philosophy of Health Care, ed. James
Lindermann Nelson and Hilde Lindermann Nelson (New York: Routledge, 1999), 148.
[16] K. Danner Clouser, and
Bernard Gert. “A Critique of Principlism,” in Meaning and Medicine: A Reader in the Philosophy of Health Care, ed.
James Lindermann Nelson and Hilde Lindermann Nelson (New York: Routledge, 1999),
166.
[17] Hammarberg, et al.
“Reproductive experiences of women who cryopreserve oocytes for non-medical
reasons,” 577.
[18] “Fertility and IVF costs,”
Genea, accessed October 14, 2018, https://www.genea.com.au/costs.;
“Genea Horizon brochure,” Genea, accessed October 14,
2018. https://www.genea.com.au/GEN/media/Genea/PDF/Genea-Horizon-brochure.pdf.
There had been a price drop. It used to be $10,000 until the end of 2017.
[19] Vida Panitch, “Assisted
Reproduction and Distributive Justice,” Bioethics
29 (2015): 115.
[20] John Wyatt, Matters of Life & Death: Human dilemmas
in the light of the Christian faith (Nottingham: IVP, 2009), 39.
[21] “Genea’s success rates,”
Genea, accessed October 14, 2018, https://www.genea.com.au/assisted-conception/success-rates?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI6tK5uMeF3gIVFHZgCh3nWAxBEAAYASAAEgJc3vD_BwE.;
“IVFAustralia success rates,” IVF Australia, accessed October 14, 2018,
https://www.ivf.com.au/ivf-success-rates.
[22] Best, Fearfully and Wonderfully Made, 263.
[23] Maura A. Ryan, “Faith and
Infertility,” in On Moral Medicine:
Theological Perspectives in Medical Ethics, ed. M. Therese Lysaught et. al.
(Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2012), 866.
[24] Best, Fearfully and Wonderfully Made, 290.
[25] Ibid., 288.
[26] Ibid., 291.
[27] Ryan, “Faith and
Infertility,” 866.
[28] Best, Fearfully and Wonderfully Made, 291.
[29] D. Gareth Jones, “Christian
Responses to Challenging Developments in Biomedical Science: The Case of In
Vitro Fertilisation,” Science and
Christian Belief 26 (2014): 155.
[30] Best, Fearfully and Wonderfully Made, 61.
[31] “Humanae Vitae: On the
Regulation of Birth,” Encyclical of Paul VI, Rome, 25 July 1968, accessed
October 12, 2018, http://w2.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae.html.
[32] Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics: III.4 The Doctrine of
Creation, ed. G. W. Bromiley and T.F. (Torrance. London: T&T Clark,
2009), 181. (188 of original edition)
[33] Best, Fearfully and Wonderfully Made, 61.
[34] Ibid., 267.
[35] Ibid., 268.
[36] Ryan, “Faith and
Infertility,” 868.
[37] Ibid., 869.
[38] Stanley Hauerwas, Suffering Presence: Theological Reflections
on Medicine, the Mentally Handicapped, and the Church (Notre Dame:
University of Notre Dame Press, 1986), 26.
[40] Best, Fearfully and Wonderfully Made, 273.
[41] Ibid., 272.
[42] Panitch, “Assisted
Reproduction and Distributive Justice,” 112.
[43] Best, Fearfully and Wonderfully Made, 272.
[44] Ibid., 326.
[45] Trevor Stammers, “The NHS
– No Place for Conscience,” Catholic
Medical Quarterly 63 (2013), accessed October 6, 2018.
http://www.cmq.org.uk/CMQ/2013/Aug/nhs_no_place_for_conscience.html.
[46] Joseph G. Schenker,
“Human reproduction: Jewish perspectives,” Gynaecological
Endocrinology 29 (2013): 946. As homosexuality is strictly forbidden (Lev.
18; 22; 20:13) in Orthodox Judaism.
[47] Schenker, “Human
reproduction: Jewish perspectives,” 947.
[48] Paul Lauritzen, “Whose
Bodies? Which Selves? Appeals to Embodiment in Assessments of Reproductive
Technology,” in On Moral Medicine:
Theological Perspectives in Medical Ethics, ed. M. Therese Lysaught et. al.
(Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2012), 851.
[49] Best, Fearfully and Wonderfully Made, 338.
[50] Jason Burke, “India’s
surrogate mothers face new rules to restrict ‘pot of gold’,” The Guardian, July 30, 2010, Accessed
October 14, 2018,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jul/30/india-surrogate-mothers-law.
[51] Best, Fearfully and Wonderfully Made, 288.
[52] Kate Aubusson, “National
guidelines oppose push to allow parents to choose sex of IVF babies,” Sydney Morning Herald, April 20, 2017, accessed
October 14, 2018.
https://www.smh.com.au/healthcare/national-guidelines-oppose-push-to-allow-parents-to-choose-sex-of-ivf-babies-20170420-gvoe6v.html.
[53] Andrew Whittaker, “Media
debates and ‘ethical publicity’ on social sex selection through preimplantation
genetic diagnosis (PGD) technology in Australia,” Culture, Health & Sexuality 17 (2015): 965.
[54] Best, Fearfully and Wonderfully Made, 385.
[55] U.M. Reddy, et al.
“Infertility, assisted reproductive technology, and adverse pregnancy outcomes
Executive summary of a National Institute of Child Health and Human Development
workshop,” Obstetrics and Gynaecology
109 (2007): 967-977.
[56] J. Reefhuis, et al.
“Assisted reproductive technology and major structural birth defects in the
United States,” Human Reproduction 24
(2009): 360-366.
[58] Richard R. Sharp, et al.
“Moral attitudes and beliefs among couples pursuing PGD for sex selection,” Reproductive BioMedicine Online 21
(2010): 843.
[59] Lauritzen, “Whose Bodies?”
852.
[60] Kenneth A. Matthews, The
American Commentary: Genesis 1-11:26 (Nashville: B&H Publishing Group,
1996), 173.
[61] Andrew Sloane, At home in a strange land: using the Old
Testament in Christian ethics (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 2008), 215.
[62] Allen Verhey, “A.R.T.,
Ethics, and the Bible,” in On Moral
Medicine: Theological Perspectives in Medical Ethics, ed. M. Therese
Lysaught et. al. (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2012),
887.
[63] Schenker, “Human
reproduction: Jewish perspectives,” 948.
[64] Best, Fearfully and Wonderfully Made, 331. A
condom with a pinhole in the end.
[65] Lauritzen, “Whose Bodies?”
853.
[66] Wyatt, Matters of Life & Death, 79.
[67] Andrew Sloane, Vulnerability and Care: Christian
Reflections on the Philosophy of Medicine (London: Bloomsbury T&T
Clark, 2016), 138.
[68] Wyatt, Matters of Life & Death, 99.
[69] Ibid., 103.
[70] Best, Fearfully and Wonderfully Made, 34-35.
[71] John Goldingay, Psalms Volume 3: Psalms 90-150 (Grand
Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006), 633; Nancy DeClaisse-Walford, Rolf A. Jacobson,
and Beth LaNeel Tanner. The Book of
Psalms (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2014), 965.
The term translated as “embryo” is a hapax legomenon, with a meaning closer to
“unshaped form.”
[72] Warnock committee 1984,
UK Parliament.
[73] Many O&G specialists.
[74] Medieval writers.
[75] Best, Fearfully and Wonderfully Made, 34-35.
[76] L.W. Sumner and Peter
Singer and some animal rights activists
[77] Peter Singer, Rethinking Life and Death (New York: St
Martin’s Griffin, 1994), 190.
[78] Wyatt, Matters of Life & Death, 45-46. Wyatt coins the term “corticalism” to
describe Singer’s discrimination of people according to their cortex.
[79] Gilbert Meilaender, Bioethics: A Primer for Christians (Grand
Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2013), 120.
[80] John Harris, On Cloning (London: Routledge, 2004),
143.
[81] Messer, Respecting Life, 126.
[82] Best, Fearfully and Wonderfully Made,
347.
[83] Whittaker, “Media debates
and ‘ethical publicity’ on social sex selection through preimplantation genetic
diagnosis (PGD) technology in Australia,” 965.
[84] Wyatt, Matters of Life & Death, 60.
[85] Messer, Respecting Life, 121.
[86] Wyatt, Matters of Life & Death, 79.
[87] Messer, Respecting Life, 112.
[88] Wyatt, Matters of Life & Death, 273.
[89] Ibid., 36-37.
[90] Whittaker, “Media debates
and ‘ethical publicity’ on social sex selection through preimplantation genetic
diagnosis (PGD) technology in Australia,” 965; Messer, Respecting Life, 98.
[91] Sloane, At home in a strange land, 215.
[92] Meilaender, Bioethics, 13.
[93] Ibid., 16.
[94] Messer, Respecting Life, 98.
[95] Oliver
O’Donovan, Begotten or Made? (Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1984), 1.
[96] Sloane, At home in a strange land, 215.
[97] Verhey, “A.R.T., Ethics,
and the Bible,” 892.
[98] Sidney Callahan, “The
Ethical Challenge of the New Reproductive Technology,” in On Moral Medicine: Theological Perspectives in Medical Ethics, ed.
M. Therese Lysaught et. al. (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing
Company, 2012), 863.
[99] Whittaker, “Media debates
and ‘ethical publicity’ on social sex selection through preimplantation genetic
diagnosis (PGD) technology in Australia,” 965.
[100] Callahan,
“The Ethical Challenge of the New Reproductive Technology,” 861.
[101] Meilaender,
Bioethics, 11.
[102] Callahan,
“The Ethical Challenge of the New Reproductive Technology,” 861.
[103]
Ibid., 864.
[104] Ibid.,
863.
[105] Messer,
Respecting Life, 87.
[106] Best,
Fearfully and Wonderfully Made, 364.
[107] Best,
Fearfully and Wonderfully Made, 365.
[108] A.
McWhinnie, Who am I? (Leamington Spa
Idreos Education Trust, 2006).
[109] Callahan,
“The Ethical Challenge of the New Reproductive Technology,” 859.
No comments:
Post a Comment