Embryo Harvesting & Freezing/Genetic Manipulation, Part II 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 question.
J.K. opinion is that every person should be free to exercise their autonomy and make decisions that are right for them without the influence of governmental regulations. J.K. follows the principles of respect for autonomy which is allowing for the capacity for self-determination (Ascension Health, 2013). She has firsthand knowledge and the experience of a person that was unable to conceive a child in her current relationship. She knows the pain and the emotional rollercoaster that can only be known by someone who has experienced infertility. She also believes that the time of conception should be a personal decision, not regulated by the government and that financial benefits should be provided to that child.
R.L. has very strong opinions on this matter; it is obvious that her beliefs and values play a major, even a dominating role in her opinions. R.L. exercises the principle of religious freedom which implies that “an individual should never act in a manner contrary to their religious beliefs and that they have the right to refuse participation in any treatment or procedure that is contrary to their conscience nor should they be restrained from acting in accordance with their own beliefs, within due limits” (Ascension Health, 2013). She does not confine her beliefs to herself; she thinks that her beliefs should be universal. She feels regulation is needed in the area of embryo harvesting to stop “unnatural procedures” and keeping doctors from playing God. She also believes that infertility is a process of natural selection by God.
MG does not believe in interfering with nature. Although, she does not oppose embryo harvesting or freezing/genetic manipulation, she believes that women need to use this process “appropriately and responsibly” for women who cannot have children on their own and need some assistance, not for conception posthumously. If a woman is already pregnant and her spouse died, then the baby is entitled to the deceased father’s benefit or inheritance, but not 18 months after the biological father passed away. She believes that a child(ren) needs two parents, a man and woman. Although, society might have different opinions, due to different values and belief systems, about this issue, MG does not believe the church support posthumous delivery, beyond the natural conception cycle. According to MG, for those people who have good support group and want a child(ren), adoption is an option or start a new, meaningful relationship. She believes that this is a complex issue and everyone is entitled to do what they want with their lives, but posthumous conception and requesting the deceased father’s inheritance/benefit 18 months after the passing of the biological father, is wrong.
After conducting my interview with HV, my conclusion leads me to believe that she was not open to manipulating God’s will, as she stated. She was opposed to the thought of science manipulating and harvesting for conception. Her faith and strong family values includes the love of father and mother. And the thought of us manipulating and imposing the child with only one parent was unbearable for her. Being raised in a Pentecostal upbringing she would not challenge God’s will. I did ask her if she were in a similar situation would she give one thought on science. Her immediate response was “no”. She was open to adoption. She believes that the gift of a child is sacred and should be no be taken for granted.
Out of the four candidates interviewed, one supports IVP as a personal freedom of choice without governmental influence and benefits should be given to posthumous babies. Another believes that people need to follow their religious belief and that government regulation should be in place to oversee these “unnatural” practices. The third person believes IVP to be used in certain cases where assistance is needed but not 18 months after the death of the father and adoption is an option. And the fourth interviewee believes that infertility is God’s will and science is wrong to challenge God’s will, having children is sacred and she is open to adoption.
Embryo harvesting and freezing/genetic manipulation has many legal, medical, and ethical complications (Ahluwalia & Arora, 2011). Ethic committees respect the autonomy of individuals’ choices for their own lives. We also believe in helping the patients’ best interest by evaluating each case scenario using the casuist and deontological theories by following the rules and laws relating to these issues. It is vital to provide patients with all the necessary guidelines, psychological and financial counseling, informed consent, and other necessary critical information. We also need to explore the motivation people of having a child(ren) posthumously to assure that they are having children for the right reasons and are able to care of the them. Certain states provide intestacy succession rights to posthumously conceived children, such as California, Colorado, Texas, and so forth (Dwyer, 2012). We also recommend individuals to explore the different intestacy rights that are most beneficial to them and possibly move to reside in that state, if not already living that state.
Conclusion
This topic is complex and controversial with many moral questions still remained unanswered. Different people have different views on how and when people should conceive and give birth and whether these babies should receive benefits and inherit from the deceased father. Some people believe that we should not be interfering with nature and violating God’s will when practicing IVP. Ethic committees must give careful consideration in these cases by respecting the autonomy of individuals, explore all the acceptable options, and use the most applicable ethical theories to help find the best solution to these issues. Since the definition of family has widened over the years, we will be seeing more and more of IVP procedures (Rivera, 2010). New laws need to be written and old laws need to be modified to accommodate the variety of new case scenarios with posthumous conception and delivery (Rivera, 2010).
References
Ahluwalia, U., & Arora, M. (2011). Posthumous reproduction and its legal perspective. Retrieved from http://www.jaypeejournals.com/eJournals/ShowText.aspx?ID=992&Type=FREE&TYP=TOP&IN=_eJournals/images/JPLOGO.gif&IID=86&isPDF=YES
Ascension Heatlh. (2013). Key Ethical Principles. Retrieved from http://www.ascensionhealth.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=87:principle-of-religious-freedom&Itemid=171 Dwyer, K. (2012). Inheritance rights of posthumously conceived children in other state. Retrieved from http://www.cga.ct.gov/2012/rpt/2012-R-0319.htm
H., V. (2013, August 24). Interview by A. Martinez []. Embryo harvesting and freezing/genetic manipulation.
J., K. (2013, August 25). Interview by C. Tincher []. Embryo harvesting and freezing/genetic manipulation.
MG. (2013, August 23). Interviewed by C. Yann-Ly []. Embryo harvesting and freezing/genetic manipulation. R., L. (2013, August 25). Interview by C. Tincher []. Embryo harvesting and freezing/genetic manipulation.
Rivera, J. (2010). Posthumous birth laws, in vitro fertilization, and other legal quandaries. Retrieved from http://lawblog.legalmatch.com/2010/09/21/posthumous-birth-laws-in-vitro-fertilization-and-other-legal-quandaries/
