Is in-vitro fertilization justifiable?

Tomorrow is Sanctity of Life Sunday, which culminates Sanctity of Life Week. It was established to encourage recognition of the fact that human life, from conception on, is to be protected. This year it falls one day past the anniversary of Roe vs. Wade.

The following is from a letter (edited) I recently sent to Focus on the Family.

Dear Focus on the Family,

I applaud you for speaking out on “life” issues and am encouraged by your support of the sanctity of life.

However, I am disturbed by something in the January issue of Focus on the Family magazine, in the “special feature” article by Carrie Gordon Earll entitled, “The Life Ethic.”

To begin her article, Earll lists examples of recent alarming news stories representative of the new biotechnical revolution. She follows with an assertion that human life is sacred. Says Earll, “A good baseline for testing the morality of bioethics is the sanctity of human life ethic, a non-negotiable view that human life, from fertilization to natural death, has intrinsic dignity and eternal worth.” (bold emphasis added) With this I wholeheartedly agree.

However, shortly thereafter, Earll brings up the subject of in-vitro fertilization (IVF). She calls it a “more complex example” (of a current life issue than abortion) and says, “while IVF may raise other ethical concerns, the goal is to enable couples to conceive a baby, not to destroy a human life.” She does not mention what these “other ethical concerns” may be.

While I do not contest that the goal of IVF is to conceive and not destroy, the fact remains that some of the created embryos, i.e., conceived babies, do not survive the process. Therefore, I must ask: Does the end (goal) justify the means?

It is a known fact that IVF results in embryonic demise, whether from failure to culture, failure to implant in the womb, or failure to survive cryo-preservation. Earll states that “The life ethic demands that no human embryo be intentionally destroyed or tampered with, so creating only the number of embryos that you intend to implant and allowing those to develop without manipulation reduces the risk that the life ethic will be violated.” (bold emphasis added)

The latter statement concedes that there is still a risk of violating the life ethic through IVF – if this is so, then how can IVF be justified? What is the risk? Is the risk acceptable?

If the life ethic demands that no human embryo be intentionally destroyed or tampered with, then IVF does not comply. IVF involves the intentional creation of embryos with the knowledge that some will likely perish in the IVF process. Though the embryonic deaths are inadvertent, they would not occur if the embryos had not been created in the first place. With IVF, the natural process of conception and implantation is artificially tampered with and manipulated to produce a pregnancy where one cannot naturally occur. This would not be a problem except that the process incurs a probability of embryonic demise greater than the naturally-occurring probability, since it adds man-made perils to naturally-occurring ones.

Surely then, during the IVF process, the non-negotiable view of the sanctity of human life is being negotiated. A couple who elects to undergo IVF does so with awareness of the fact that some of the embryos they help to create will perish.

Earll’s words appear to be evidence of compromise and rationalization.

Please note that I am in no way callous to the grief of couples who long to conceive children but are not able to do so naturally. However, personal desires and feelings should not determine ethics.

Obviously, any child born as result of IVF is every bit as valuable and precious as any other child. The problem is, those tiny lives which perish as a result of IVF are too.

I have no desire whatsoever to judge anyone who has undergone IVF, or who defends it. But I do think the issue should be discussed thoroughly, honestly, and consistently by those who claim, as I do, that human life begins at conception.

I welcome discussion.