FREE ESSAY ON REPRODUCTIVE MEDICINE

REPRODUCTIVE MEDICINE

Reproductive Medicine on the Ethical Frontier
" I love kids and I always wanted to have them. They said they'd tried it in sheep and it
worked."
Stacie McBain was recently diagnosed with cancer at the age of 20. Doctors told her that
the treatment she would undergo will ultimately leave her infertile. In light of this
devastating news was an experimental procedure that had given Stacie the chance to become
a mother. Her wish was no longer in the hands of God, but in the technology discovered by
a doctor. Such experimental operations have occurred across the globe for over a decade,
placing fertility procedures "in the eye of an ethical storm" (Meyer 94). The question
remains are doctors playing God, or just giving infertile patients their wish to become
parents? 
The advances in science and medicine have led to the increase in ethical disputes. For
many couples desperate to have children, 
fertility procedures are a momentous opportunity, which come with a high price. According
to the New England Journal of Medicine, "in 1994, the fertility industry cost the US
Health-care system between $60,000 and $110,000 for each successful pregnancy." Not only
are these operations expensive, but also tantalizing and to some immoral. "We often get
ahead of ourselves in technologically...And the ethics; we're still wrestling with those
kinds of questions" (Silverman). 
In-vitro fertilization, artificial insemination, and fertility drugs are all available
prospects for the infertile couple, today. The Ethics Committee of the American Fertility
Society states "[ Artificial insemination by donor ] may be the best solution to overcome
the infertile couple's inability to have their own...child." In-vitro fertilization,
otherwise known as test-tube babies, is a process in which doctors remove ovaries and
prepare them in a petri dish along with the male's sperm to ensure pregnancy. This
process begins with the female submitting to a two-week regimen of daily drug injections,
tedious blood shots, and a number of ultrasound examinations. Although they are well
informed of the price tag, risks, and effects of these procedures, "reproductive medicine
is now a $1 billion-a-year industry that accounts for some 23,000 live births a year in
the U.S. alone (Wulf).
With these experimental procedures comes the risk of error by surgeons. Donna Fasano of
New York was one victim in an infertility treatment mix-up that impregnated her with two
embryos; one with her egg and husband's sperm, and one with an African American's DNA.
Their fertility specialist notified the Fasono's of the mistake one week into the
pregnancy, and Donna continued to carry both embryos to full term, giving birth to twin
boys, one white and one black, in December of 1999. Deborah and Robert Rogers were also
patients at the same clinic, and believe the black child is their son. The boys are
surrounded by legal and ethical disputes; the Rogers demanding that they are the
biological parents and the Fasanos insisting that the boys should not be separated. Who
are the real parents and who deserve custody of this child? 
The University of California at Irvine is also in the midst of a legal battle over
alleged medical malpractice in its fertility clinic. Doctors are accused of stealing the
eggs of women who were undergoing routine surgeries for reproductive problems, and then
implanting them into other women, some of who became pregnant. Who are the real parents
and who deserve custody of these children?
John and Luanne Buzzanca of Orange County, California were an infertile couple. They
hired a married woman, Pamela Snell, to carry a child to term for them; a child made from
the sperm and egg of anonymous, unrelated donors. One month before Jaycee Buzzanca was
born, John filed for divorce complicating the situation further. John claims the divorce
relieved him of parental responsibilities (according to California law, fatherhood is
defined by biological parentage or marriage to the child's birth mother.) Luanne also had
no parental right to the child, for she was neither the biological mother nor her birth
mother. The surrogate mother had signed a contract relinquishing her maternal rights
after birth. The donors remained anonymous, thus leaving Jaycee with no legal parents. 
Such legal battles put innocent children in the line of fire when it comes to who the
rightful families are. Today it is possible for a child to have five parents. A genetic
mother and father, a gestational mother, and a sociological mother and father (the ones
who raise the child). A recent study by Nanette R. Elster of the Chicago-Kent College of
Law shows that the several techniques in use today allow seven or eight people to have
parental claims on a single newborn. In some situations as many as 10 people could claim
parental ties to the infant. What defines a parent? Baby making is now done in so many
different ways, with a number of participants, making the question difficult to answer. 
Is the fertility industry humane? We are submitting mothers to painful testing when the
results are totally uncertain. There is a definite possibility of not getting pregnant at
all, just as equal as the possibility of having a multiple birth and both results may
also come with a cloud of ethical arguments. 
The entire field of reproductive medicine is in a world of moral controversy. Paul Ramsey
of the Journal of Human Medicine concludes, "Human parenthood...is a basic form of
humanity. To violate this is already dehumanizing, even if spiritualistic or
personalistic or mentalistic categories are invoked to justify it...The parameters of
human life, which science and medicine should serve not to violate are grounded in
the...flesh and in the nature of human parenthood." Many agree that the practice of
reproductive technology is breaking the fidelity bond of marriage. While others stand
strong in their argument that since no sexual intercourse takes place, no adultery has
occurred. 
These legal and moral disputes surrounding the field of reproductive medicine will
continue to grow. As research and science increase, so too will the arguments. The matter
of life is a delicate issue. The end result could be pure jubilation or total
devastation. Does the gift of birth excuse doctors from "playing God." Who has the power
to determine the answer? Is it the infertile couple who desires to be parents, or those
who believe that life and death is in God's hands? 
Reproductive Medicine on the Ethical Frontier
" I love kids and I always wanted to have them. They said they'd tried it in sheep and it
worked."
Stacie McBain was recently diagnosed with cancer at the age of 20. Doctors told her that
the treatment she would undergo will ultimately leave her infertile. In light of this
devastating news was an experimental procedure that had given Stacie the chance to become
a mother. Her wish was no longer in the hands of God, but in the technology discovered by
a doctor. Such experimental operations have occurred across the globe for over a decade,
placing fertility procedures "in the eye of an ethical storm" (Meyer 94). The question
remains are doctors playing God, or just giving infertile patients their wish to become
parents? 
The advances in science and medicine have led to the increase in ethical disputes. For
many couples desperate to have children, 
fertility procedures are a momentous opportunity, which come with a high price. According
to the New England Journal of Medicine, "in 1994, the fertility industry cost the US
Health-care system between $60,000 and $110,000 for each successful pregnancy." Not only
are these operations expensive, but also tantalizing and to some immoral. "We often get
ahead of ourselves in technologically...And the ethics; we're still wrestling with those
kinds of questions" (Silverman). 
In-vitro fertilization, artificial insemination, and fertility drugs are all available
prospects for the infertile couple, today. The Ethics Committee of the American Fertility
Society states "[ Artificial insemination by donor ] may be the best solution to overcome
the infertile couple's inability to have their own...child." In-vitro fertilization,
otherwise known as test-tube babies, is a process in which doctors remove ovaries and
prepare them in a petri dish along with the male's sperm to ensure pregnancy. This
process begins with the female submitting to a two-week regimen of daily drug injections,
tedious blood shots, and a number of ultrasound examinations. Although they are well
informed of the price tag, risks, and effects of these procedures, "reproductive medicine
is now a $1 billion-a-year industry that accounts for some 23,000 live births a year in
the U.S. alone (Wulf).
With these experimental procedures comes the risk of error by surgeons. Donna Fasano of
New York was one victim in an infertility treatment mix-up that impregnated her with two
embryos; one with her egg and husband's sperm, and one with an African American's DNA.
Their fertility specialist notified the Fasono's of the mistake one week into the
pregnancy, and Donna continued to carry both embryos to full term, giving birth to twin
boys, one white and one black, in December of 1999. Deborah and Robert Rogers were also
patients at the same clinic, and believe the black child is their son. The boys are
surrounded by legal and ethical disputes; the Rogers demanding that they are the
biological parents and the Fasanos insisting that the boys should not be separated. Who
are the real parents and who deserve custody of this child? 
The University of California at Irvine is also in the midst of a legal battle over
alleged medical malpractice in its fertility clinic. Doctors are accused of stealing the
eggs of women who were undergoing routine surgeries for reproductive problems, and then
implanting them into other women, some of who became pregnant. Who are the real parents
and who deserve custody of these children?
John and Luanne Buzzanca of Orange County, California were an infertile couple. They
hired a married woman, Pamela Snell, to carry a child to term for them; a child made from
the sperm and egg of anonymous, unrelated donors. One month before Jaycee Buzzanca was
born, John filed for divorce complicating the situation further. John claims the divorce
relieved him of parental responsibilities (according to California law, fatherhood is
defined by biological parentage or marriage to the child's birth mother.) Luanne also had
no parental right to the child, for she was neither the biological mother nor her birth
mother. The surrogate mother had signed a contract relinquishing her maternal rights
after birth. The donors remained anonymous, thus leaving Jaycee with no legal parents. 
Such legal battles put innocent children in the line of fire when it comes to who the
rightful families are. Today it is possible for a child to have five parents. A genetic
mother and father, a gestational mother, and a sociological mother and father (the ones
who raise the child). A recent study by Nanette R. Elster of the Chicago-Kent College of
Law shows that the several techniques in use today allow seven or eight people to have
parental claims on a single newborn. In some situations as many as 10 people could claim
parental ties to the infant. What defines a parent? Baby making is now done in so many
different ways, with a number of participants, making the question difficult to answer. 
Is the fertility industry humane? We are submitting mothers to painful testing when the
results are totally uncertain. There is a definite possibility of not getting pregnant at
all, just as equal as the possibility of having a multiple birth and both results may
also come with a cloud of ethical arguments. 
The entire field of reproductive medicine is in a world of moral controversy. Paul Ramsey
of the Journal of Human Medicine concludes, "Human parenthood...is a basic form of
humanity. To violate this is already dehumanizing, even if spiritualistic or
personalistic or mentalistic categories are invoked to justify it...The parameters of
human life, which science and medicine should serve not to violate are grounded in
the...flesh and in the nature of human parenthood." Many agree that the practice of
reproductive technology is breaking the fidelity bond of marriage. While others stand
strong in their argument that since no sexual intercourse takes place, no adultery has
occurred. 
These legal and moral disputes surrounding the field of reproductive medicine will
continue to grow. As research and science increase, so too will the arguments. The matter
of life is a delicate issue. The end result could be pure jubilation or total
devastation. Does the gift of birth excuse doctors from "playing God." Who has the power
to determine the answer? Is it the infertile couple who desires to be parents, or those
who believe that life and death is in God's hands?