IVF & Artificial Reproductive Technologies (ART)
The two principle forms of Artificial Reproductive Technologies (ART) are artificial insemination (or intra-uterine insemination) and in vitro fertilisation (IVF).
Artificial insemination
Artificial insemination, the simpler of the two procedures, involves the doctor introducing semen, via syringe or other means, into the vagina outside of the normal act of intercourse between the two spouses. This may be combined with a stimulation of the ovaries to produce multiple ova. This process, of course, can be done with semen from the husband or from any "third party" donor. The moral status of this latter "donor" option should be understood without further clarification. It stands in direct opposition to the unity of husband and wife and their vocation to mutual love and fruitfulness. Artificial insemination by the husband may require a closer look, though.
One of the first, though by no means the strongest, objections to a husband's sperm being introduced artificially into the wife is the means by which the semen is collected. Quite often this is done through masturbation. While masturbation for such an end might seem quite different in intention from masturbation for selfish pleasure, we must remember the sacramental and incarnational logic that guides the Christian. Genital acts, by the nature inscribed in them by their creator, are meant at all times and in all circumstances to be interpersonal. No good intention can change this purpose. But semen could, in theory, be collected in other medical ways.
The main concern with artificial insemination is essentially the same as with contraception. Contraception is a violation of the natural procreative potential that is intrinsic to every marital act. It contradicts the sacramental language of the body as the fulfilment of total self-giving. Well, just as the procreative potential of the marital act can be thwarted, so too can the unitive aspect. And this is precisely what artificial insemination does. By removing the conception of a new human being from the environment of total self-giving of the spouses and placing it in an environment of technical efficiency and control, we have violated the intrinsic unitive aspect of the marital act. In doing so, we essentially violate the personal dignity of the child - placing him or her on the level of a product of technology instead of the fruit and pure gift of self-giving love.
In vitro fertilisation
In vitro fertilisation yields to a similar moral analysis, but adds a much more serious element to the picture. In IVF, the woman's ovaries are, again, stimulated to produce multiple ova. These ova are surgically removed from the mother and placed, literally, in vitro (that is, "in glass" - a petri dish). Semen from the husband is obtained, artificially "capacitated" and then placed in the dish with the ova. The result is often multiple conceptions in the dish. A process of genetic analysis usually follows to determine if any of the conceived embryos have defects. These will most often be "discarded". Those determined to be most healthy will be implanted into the mother's womb. Though the couple may "want" only one child, the failure rate for successful implantation is so high as to necessitate multiple implantations - assuming that most will die. Any remaining embryos are then frozen for later "use" or destroyed.
Natural Procreative Technology: An Effective Alternative
Couples experiencing infertility have a right to learn about the morally acceptable methods of fertility assistance provided by NaPro Technology.
NaPro Technology (which stands for Natural Procreative Technology) is a medical extension of the Creighton Model of Natural Family Planning. One of the fundamental principles of NFP is that each woman's fertility cycle contains informative "bio-markers", which, if tracked and recorded, can reveal to a couple times of natural fertility and infertility. There is a medical institute in the United States that has taken this principle many steps further through two decades of research and practice. Using more specific charting methods, they are able to diagnose and treat many forms of gynaecological problems, including certain types of infertility. The key to their uniqueness and success is the close attention they pay to the very specific signs contained in the woman's fertility cycle; signs which reveal problems that more general gynaecological diagnosis can miss.
They specialise in hormonal treatments, advanced ultrasound testing, and surgical interventions where needed. As you can imagine, the particular focus of their work puts them in a position to assist couples not only with the physical, but also the emotional and psychological effects of reproductive problems. Their "underlying cause" approach to infertility often yields results better and at much less cost than artificial and morally unacceptable methods. NaPro Technology was developed by Dr. Thomas Hilgers at the Pope Paul VI Institute for the Study of Human Reproduction, which he founded in Omaha, Nebraska in 1985.
NaPro Technology vs. ART
Artificial Reproductive Technologies = Openness to life without union.
Natural Procreative Technologies = Openness to life with union.
Some Preaching Points
- Artificial reproductive technologies pose the opposite moral problem to contraception. Whereas contraception violates the procreative dimension of conjugal love, artificial reproduction violates the unitive dimension.
- If a technical means facilitates the conjugal act or helps it to reach its natural objectives, it is morally acceptable. If, on the other hand, the procedure were to replace the conjugal act, it is morally illicit. (DV II, 6)
- The mystery of life as a pure gift... The Church's teachings on artificial reproduction brings into sharp focus the true mystery and dignity of the creation of human life. Life is truly a gift over and above all else. That gift, which is a new human person, must be the fruit of the conjugal act of spouses.
- Why must human beings be conceived only through the conjugal act? The fullest expression of mutual self-giving love is the conjugal act. By this act, the two spouses make of themselves, body and spirit, a gift to the other. In doing so, they image and sacramentally participate in the life of the Trinity and the love and desire for communion of Christ and the Church. There is no more appropriate place for God to offer the gratuitous gift of a new immortal human person made in his image than in such an act of complete giving of self.
Procreation must be the fruit and sign of this specific love, and this love must always at least be open to the gift of procreation. Never can we reduce the gift of life to a matter of simple technical efficiency and mastery. To do this would be to make of the person an object of technology in their very origins. - There is no "right" to have children... Unfortunately, it has become merely quaint to think of each child as a unique creation and gift of God the Father. Children, it seems, are more like planned acquisitions in our culture - acquisitions that should fit into our expectations about the ease and enjoyments that should characterise our lifestyle. A "right" to have a child is contrary to the child's dignity and nature. The child is not an object to which one has a right, nor can she be considered as an object of ownership. Rather, a child is the most gratuitous gift of marriage, and is a living testimony of the mutual giving of her parents. For this reason, the child has the right to be the fruit of the specific act of the conjugal love of her parents; and she also has the right to be respected as a person from the moment of her conception. (DV II, 8)
- The true suffering of infertility... The desire for children is a full expression of the fruit of married love. Infertility is, thus, a tremendous burden. This burden can be all the more acute as couples experiencing infertility see the gift of children so often squandered and unappreciated in reckless and selfish attitudes and behaviours toward sexuality in others. Again, it is very important that couples who believe they are infertile explore the assistance of NaPro Technology.
Church Documents and Teaching
Donum Vitae, CDF 1987
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/
rc_con_cfaith_doc_19870222_respect-for-human-life_en.html
Dignitas Personae, CDF September 2008. The U.S. Bishops website is a good access point for this document.
http://www.usccb.org/comm/Dignitaspersonae/
Veritatis Splendor, Pope John Paul II, 1993
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_06081993_veritatis-splendor_en.html
Catechism of the Catholic Church, #2292-2295 http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a5.htm
Quotes:
"Scientific, medical, or psychological experiments on human individuals or groups can contribute to healing the sick and the advancement of public health" (CCC, #2292).
"By themselves however they cannot disclose the meaning of existence and of human progress. Science and technology are ordered to man, from whom they take their origin and development; hence they find in the person and in his moral values both evidence of their purpose and awareness of their limits"(CCC, #2293).
"Natural law is nothing other than the light of understanding infused in us by God, whereby we understand what must be done and what must be avoided. God gave this light and this law to man at creation" (VS, #12, quoting St Thomas).
"Research or experimentation on the human being cannot legitimate acts that are in themselves contrary to the dignity of persons and to the moral law. The subjects' potential consent does not justify such acts. Experimentation on human beings is not morally legitimate if it exposes the subject's life or physical and psychological integrity to disproportionate or avoidable risks. Experimentation on human beings does not conform to the dignity of the person if it takes place without the informed consent of the subject. or those who legitimately speak for him" (CCC, #2295).
"The use of human embryos or fetuses as an object of experimentation constitutes a crime against their dignity as human beings who have a right to the same respect owed to a child once born, just as to every person" (EV, #63).
"Organ transplants are in conformity with the moral law if the physical and psychological dangers and risks to the donor are proportionate to the good sought for the recipient. Organ donation after death is a noble and meritorious act and is to be encouraged as an expression of generous solidarity. It is not morally acceptable if the donor or his proxy has not given explicit consent. Moreover, it is not morally admissible to bring about the disabling mutilation or death of a human being, even in order to delay the death of other persons" (CCC, #2296).
