3.8 million human embryos created to produce 122,000 live births – success rate of 3.2%

Dr Peter Saunders has posted a very interesting article in his BLOG Christian Medical Comment on the recent Daily Telegraph report on the shocking wastage of human embryos resulting from IVF.  We have pointed out the intrinsic evil of this practice on many occasions over the years see for example the following links from 2008 -2010 – 2011

Dr Saunders article reads as follows:

The Daily Telegraph this weekend reports on a new expert study which has raised fears that some clinics may be offering techniques that put the embryo at risk for their own profit.

The review, carried out by Dr Justin McCracken, the former head of the Health Protection Agency, highlighted a new technique, known as Pre-Implantation Genetic Screening (PGS), as one which is possibly being offered inappropriately for commercial reasons.

For a fee, which can run into thousands of pounds, clinics can check embryos created by a successful IVF cycle for certain genetic abnormalities and only implant those that appear normal.

The process is becoming especially popular for older couples seeking IVF, because embryos created from their sperm and eggs have a higher chance of abnormalities. As it involves the removal of a cell from an embryo (see picture) it carries some risk for the embryo being tested.

Dr McCracken said the jury was still out on whether PGS improves the chances of having a baby and warned there is a risk of harm to the foetus. He said it was vital that the regulator checks that clinics are not simply recommending it to boost profits.

 ‘I understand that there is no clinical consensus regarding its efficacy, but there is a real risk to the embryo in carrying it out.’ (emphasis mine)

This is a somewhat curious statement. Dr McCracken seems (appropriately) concerned about the risk of damage to a few hundred embryos each year undergoing PGS.

But he is curiously silent (or perhaps unaware) that over three million embryos have perished or been deliberately destroyed since 1990 as a result of procedures made legal by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act.

Liberal Democrat Peer Lord Alton recently asked in parliament how many embryos have been created in each year since the commencement of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990, and how many of these have resulted in live births.

Figures given in reply by the Under-Secretary of State at the Department of Health Earl Howe showed that 3,806,699 embryos have been created since 1990. Between 1992 and 2006 a total of 122,043 live births occurred according to figures from the HFEA given alongside his reply (see also here).

122,043 live births from 3,806,699 embryos represent a success rate of 3.21% (1 in 30). Or, to put it another way, 3,684,656 embryos never made it to birth. CMF has highlighted this ratio of 1 in 30 before.

These figures make McCracken’s concern about PGS embryos alone look like what Jesus called ‘straining a gnat whilst swallowing a camel’ (Matthew 23:23-24).

In a letter to the Telegraph, as yet unpublished, disability rights advocate Ann Farmer has highlighted the fact that, in addition to the vast wastage of embryos, some women have also died from complications of infertility treatments such as OHSS. She comments:

‘The whole point of the infertility industry is to manufacture babies out of embryos… A car factory that managed to accumulate 3,684,656 surplus models between 1990 and 2012 and in addition killed some of its customers would surely have gone out of business long ago.’

In 1948 the World Medical Association adopted the Declaration of Geneva which included the affirmation, ‘I will maintain the utmost respect for human life from the time of conception, even against threat’.

Today’s doctors, it seems, take a contrary view.

If you agree with today’s doctors that early human life can be treated as a disposable commodity then the figures that Lord Alton has uncovered (not much short of the current population of New Zealand!) will probably not bother you much at all.

But if, like me, you believe that they are special creations made in God’s image, which should be granted respect, wonder, empathy and protection you will no doubt be very concerned indeed.

Genetically Modified Humans and Three Parent Children

The British fertility industry and the Department of Health have announced their intention to permit human germ-line gene modification involving genetic material from three human parents. The proposed draft regulations to allow the abnormal creation of human embryos in order to address mitochondrial diseases has been heralded as "life-saving treatment" by Professor Dame Sally Davies, the UK government's chief medical officer.  According to the announcement the new regulations are being introduced to permit researchers to eliminate inherited defective genes but this will undoubtedly lead to the destruction of embryos, the scrambling the identity of children born as a result of the research and will for the first time introduce so called ‘designer’ human beings.

These procedures go far beyond currently existing IVF practices and consequently pose serious health risks to resultant children. They also involve a scrambling of the genetic identity of the child introducing new kinship confusion for future generations and are consequently contrary to the rights of the child.

There is no doubt that once a society accepts the separation of the unitive from the procreative aspect of sexuality it opens the door for other abuses.

The abuses associated with in vitro fertilization (IVF) industry are well documented see my BLOG posts of February 18th 2010, August 3rd 2010, February 14, 2011, November 29th 2011, and April 2^nd 2013.

The new techniques - Pronuclear Transfer (PNT), Maternal Spindle Transfer (MST) and Nuclear Genome Transfer (NGT) are presented as a minor extension of IVF. The introduction of genetically modified humans born of biological material from three people, however, represents a new and significant assault on human identity and the commencement a eugenic designer race.

The procedures are incompatible with a raft of previously approve international treaties and conventions including the 2004 EU Treaty, the 1966 United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Declaration of Geneva all of which prohibit various aspects of the processes.

A spokesman for SPUC responding to the HFEA announcement said: "In fact, the vast majority of embryonic children created in the laboratory are killed because they do not meet the 'quality control' requirements dictated by scientists involved in such increasingly macabre experiments. Also, over the past 20 years, proponents of human embryo experimentation have repeatedly claimed that such research offered the promise - and perhaps the only hope - of finding treatments for serious diseases. The public has been repeatedly misled. It is the biotech industry's excuse to create a genetically manipulated baby."

Irish Government appeals surrogacy judgement to Supreme Court

The Irish Government yesterday announced that the judgement of Mr Henry Abbott in the recent surrogacy case is being appealed to the Supreme Court to clarify what they describe as, ‘a number of points of law of exceptional public importance.’

According to the Government statement, which is set out fully below, the judgement raises important questions about how motherhood may be determined under Irish law and has potentially very serious consequences which could, by linking motherhood exclusively to genetic connection, affect a potentially large number of families.

The statement crucially states about the judgement ‘It may also have the effect of tying the hands of the Oireachtas in how it may legislate, in the future, for the complex areas of surrogacy and assisted human reproduction.’

Mr Justice Abbott ruled in favour of the genetic parents in this case, and rejected the customary principle, mater semper certa est, a principle that means that the mother who gives birth, is the legally recognized mother. In coming to this judgement Mr. Justice Henry Abbott recognized the validity of the DNA test for paternity and maternity.

When is DNA set down? It is set down on the completion of fertilization. In other words, Mr Justice Abbott in recognizing DNA as the basis for establishing parenthood has recognized, in effect, that on fertilization the individual human being comes into existence.

This judgement has major implications for the current Government proposals to legislate for the introduction of abortion, leaving it with no option but to appeal to the Supreme Court because of its potential to scupper the proposed legislation

Either way the Government is in a difficult position, on the one hand there will be anger and disappointment at the decision, by families who wish to register children, born using surrogate mothers, as their own, then there is the potential of the judgement to scupper the Government's pro-abortion legislation. On the other hand if the appeal is successful then the use of DNA evidence in court will be called into question with the possible consequences that most of the rape case judgements, murder cases judgements, robbery and sundry other judgements –– going back for as long as the DNA test has been in use –, would have to be declared unsound, and all the criminals involved would have to be released immediately – an appalling vista. 

The Government may now have no option but to defer the enactment of their pro-abortion legislation until after the Supreme Court rules on this issue, which we understand is to be fast tracked.

See related articles in the Irish Independent and the Irish Times

Government Statement

Statement in relation to High Court judgement in the case of MR, DR, OR and CR v An tÁrd Chlaraitheoir [Registrar General], Ireland & the Attorney General

While extremely mindful of the family at the centre of this case, the Government has agreed that the above judgement should be appealed by the Registrar General to the Supreme Court to clarify a number of points of law of exceptional public importance.

The judgement raises important questions about how motherhood may be determined under Irish law and has potentially very serious consequences which could, by linking motherhood exclusively to genetic connection, affect a potentially large number of families. It may also have the effect of tying the hands of the Oireachtas in how it may legislate, in the future, for the complex areas of surrogacy and assisted human reproduction.

The appeal is therefore considered necessary both to bring certainty to this vital area of law and to ensure that the legislature's scope to legislate is absolutely clear. Such clarity is especially important because the Government is committed to legislating to address the wider issues surrounding assisted human reproduction, including surrogacy. Legislation is currently being prepared with a view to being brought to Government later this year.

Department of Social Protection 6th June 2013

Pope Benedict reiterates Catholic teaching against artificial procreation such as IVF

The Pope meeting with members of the Pontifical Academy for Life urged infertile couples to shun IVF and insisted that sex between a husband and wife was the only acceptable way of conceiving.

Pope Benedict XVI said artificial methods of getting pregnant were simply 'arrogance' as he spoke at the end of the Academy's three-day conference on infertility in Rome. See Daily Mail report

He told scientists and fertility experts that matrimony was the 'only place worthy of the call to existence of a new human being'.

The Pope reiterated the Church's stance against artificial procreation, telling infertile couples they should refrain from trying to conceive through any method other than conjugal relations.

'The human and Christian dignity of procreation, in fact, doesn't consist in a "product", but in its link to the conjugal act, an expression of the love of the spouses of their union, not only biological but also spiritual,' Benedict said.

He told the specialists in his audience to resist 'the fascination of the technology of artificial fertility', warning against 'easy income, or even worse, the arrogance of taking the place of the Creator'.

He suggested that this was the attitude that underlies the field of artificial procreation.

Sperm or egg donation and methods such as in vitro fertilization are banned for members of the Catholic church.

The emphasis on science and 'the logic of profit seem today to dominate the field of infertility and human procreation', the Pope said.

But he added that the Church encourages medical research into infertility

Controversial testing of IVF embryos proposed

RTE news on Tuesday January 17th reported that a new private fertility clinic has opened in Ireland which will provide pre-implantation Genetic Diagnosis (PGD).  to identify human embryos brought into being through in-vitro fertilisation (IVF), which are deemed to be at risk of carrying inherited disorders such as cystic fibrosis. See also Irish Times article
Needles to say this type of screening prior to implantation is highly controversial and is carried out for the express purpose of selection of some embryos and the disposal of others. It can only be described as eugenic in nature and intent. 
The new Clinic built in Sandyford Co Dublin at a cost of €2.5 million.

This controversial move, which is being lauded by the media, was made despite the fact that the Irish Medicines Board (IMB) do not appear to have not granted permission for it.

According to an Irish Times report on Wednesday January 18th. 

The IMB said yesterday it has not issued any licence yet – and an authorisation would be issued only if it complied with legislation on tissues and cells.

It is understood that several IVF clinics in Ireland also hope to begin another form of genetic screening soon involving analysing the chromosomes of embryos. 

PGD is also used in other countries to identify chromosomal abnormalities such as down syndrome

I am reminded that Professor Robert Edwards who is regarded as the father of the exploitative practice of IVF,  claimed that it will soon be "a sin" for a woman to give birth to a disabled child and 'burden society'.  see my previous BLOG

However, with the exception of "No Less Human" I have not heard any disability rights groups denounce Dr Edwards' eugenicist comments, just as remarkably few journalists have the courage to investigate and challenge the public image of IVF practitioners as caring, altruistic and responsible.

Irish Babies being aborted in UK while childless couples in Ireland seek to adopt abroad

A feature entitled ‘From the Archives’ that appeared in the Irish Times newspaper recently throws an interesting light on society in general in Ireland over sixty years ago, and particularly on the plight of children born to Irish mothers outside wedlock at that time.  The piece, an editorial that appeared in the newspaper in 1949, tells us that 

‘The lot of the unwanted legitimate child is hard.  That of the unwanted illegitimate child is vastly harder.  The charge of infanticide is heard with monotonous regularity in our Irish Courts, but often, when a terrified mother shrinks from so dreadful a crime and consents to carry the stigma of her shame, her unwanted child almost has reason to regret that he had not been granted the mercy of a quick death.’  Three possibilities are suggested for the mother – to ‘farm out’ her child to some family that would be willing to raise him (often a miserable existence); to put her child into an institution (again, not always an ideal solution); and, thirdly, to put her child up for adoption.  ‘She may be put in touch with some decent, childless and frequently well-to-do family that is anxious to adopt the child and bring him, or her, up as its own.’

The editorial continues with a remarkable comment that is extremely relevant to today’s world, where childless couples are willing to go to any lengths to obtain a child – be it IVF and the financial and physical cost to the woman – or be it going through all the hassle and expense of adopting a child from Russia, Vietnam, China, or wherever, and the sometimes dubious advantage to the child in question.

The editorial says that the possibility of adoption is ‘infinitely the best solution of the three.  It is well known that there are many thousands of childless couples in Ireland who would gladly bring up such a child as their own, give him every advantage within their means, endow him with their name and social position, and leave him their money.’

Why do the childless couples of Ireland have to resort to IVF and other AHR (assisted human reproduction) procedures, or why do they have to go abroad to other countries to adopt a child today?     If the thousands of Irish babies who are killed by abortion every year were alive today would they not bring happiness to so many childless couples, and at the same time be allowed to live the life that God intended for them.

The editorial ended by commenting on a problem involved with the process of adoption at that time – the fact that there was no possibility of legally adopting a child.    A small matter, but one that has been resolved in the intervening years through appropriate legislation. 

Irish Justice Minister considering the publication of official guidelines in order ‘to prevent babies ending up in “legal limbo” following IVF and related procedures?

Last week I blogged on the subject of IVF (22 November 2011), and I am now returning to the same theme.

 

The relentless push for the destruction of human life continues, together with the demystification of the wonder of creation, and the making of children into mere commodities – to be picked off a shelf when and where it suits.   This is child abuse – pure and simple.   And the Irish Government, in common with other western governments, is aiding and abetting this abuse.

The Government’s ‘special rapporteur on child protection’ is concerned at the lack of legislation to regulate the ‘assisted human reproduction’ industry in Ireland.   He worries that a child whose father could be Ukrainian, or Danish, or whose mother might be Indian, or Spanish, or whatever, ‘may never be able to trace their genetic parents or have access to important genetic information.’  It is estimated that there are approximately 500 such children born in Ireland each year.

Now, let nobody accuse me of being unfeeling or uncaring towards those couples that cannot conceive a child of their own.   It is a very sad situation in which to find themselves.   But the child that they obtain through the involvement of ‘donor’ sperm or eggs is not their biological child, and this very fact is a violation of the child’s rights.   Every child is a child created by God – no matter what are the circumstances of his or her conception.  But a child is nevertheless the God-given fruit of the love of a man and a woman – ideally husband and wife.    Following lobbying on the part of the ‘reproductive’ industry, the Government says that in the current economic climate it will only be possible to provide for legislation either for IVF or in relation to the ECHR decision in the AB&C case. 

The Irish Minister for Justice – ironically – is seriously considering the publication of official guidelines in order ‘to prevent babies ending up in “legal limbo” ’    How come?    It seems that couples travel abroad from Ireland so that their child (or someone else’s?) will be borne and given birth to by a woman in some other country.  Such a baby is considered to be ‘stateless’, and unable to be provided with a passport.    So the people who profess to be concerned with the rights of children want to have legislation introduced in Ireland that would negate the fact that a child is a birth child of one woman, while making legal the parental claim of a couple to the child – who may or may not be the biological child of either one of the ‘commissioning’ couple.

The Irish Government would do well to sit back and consider the awful implications of what is involved here – in particular the awful destruction of human life that is involved in the IVF industry, and the denial of their basic human rights to the children who are the  so called ‘products’ of such inhuman experiments.

On the other hand a figure of approximately 4,000 is usually quoted for the number of Irish women and girls whose babies are aborted outside Ireland each year.    How much more humane it would be if the Irish Government – instead of its policy of encouraging the abortion industry and the IVF industry – were to assist, morally and financially, those who unintentionally become pregnant.   Couples who find themselves unable to bear a child of their own could then give a loving home to the child of the mother who for whatever reason is unable or unwilling to raise her child.   This may sound a simplistic solution – but when one considers the physical and mental injury caused by abortion, and the trauma and cost involved in the use of IVF, maybe it’s not such a remarkable suggestion.

NaproTechnology

The heart break of infertility on the one hand and the stress of the dehumanising procedures involved in the IVF industry quite apart from the shocking destruction of human embryos need not be inevitable. Many women are completely unaware that there is a natural alternative treatment for infertility. The science of NaproTechnology has been developed to such an extent that not only does it assist in the planning and spacing of pregnancies, it is also used to assist many seemingly infertile women to become pregnant thus making IVF redundant. 

NaproTechnology is the first women's health science to network family planning with reproductive health monitoring and maintenance. It is a fertility-care based medical approach rather than a fertility-control approach to family planning and gynecological health.

IVF: A human life abuse

The London Independent newspaper reports (17 November 2011) that: ‘Single women who have given up waiting for Mr Right are increasingly turning to IVF to start a family.’   The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority is quoted as stating that a big rise in the number of IVF cycles ‘using donated sperm’ has been noted.

The ‘head of reproductive medicine services’ at St. George’s University Hospital in London is reported as saying: ‘More and more single women are coming for treatment.  Every IVF clinic will tell you the same; they are treating more single women.’ 

Treating?

‘Women know the clock is ticking.  The biological clock is different for men and women and women know they cannot afford to wait.  They want to go and have their children and if a man turns up later, well fine, they will have their children and a partner.’

The list of wrongs involved in the above account is endless and, beyond any other consideration, to deny a child his or her God-given dignity in being conceived in God’s plan for humanity, is horrendous.   

Are children once more being regarded as commodities – accessories – to enhance the lifestyle of many people?   What about the child?   What about the human right of a child to have and to know his or her own mother and father?   Does anyone consider that in later life a child may meet and fall in love with a half-brother or half-sister?  Where are all the so-called ‘defenders’ of children’s rights?

The Irish Times appears to be cashing in on the problem of infertility, too.  In its weekend ‘review’ section the newspaper makes a huge story about the anguish of those people in Ireland who find that they cannot conceive a child.   While not in any way seeming to minimise the disappointment of men and women who find themselves in that situation, at the same time we must recognise that the child, too, has rights over and above those claimed by people who are infertile.   It is a lie to say that a child conceived by means of a ‘donor’ – either male or female – is the natural child of the ‘commissioning’ couple.   To persist with such an attitude is to perpetuate that lie, and denies a human being the knowledge of who is his or her own mother or father.  Apart from the ethics and morality involved in such a situation, the stress and physical and emotional damage caused – particularly to the female – are enormous, a fact actually admitted in the Irish Times feature.

Another extraordinary admission on the part of the Irish Times feature writer occurs when describing the IVF ‘procedure’ (in a very clinical manner) – ‘[…] and there it is: human life in its very first seconds.’      Acknowledgment of the fact that pro-life people have known and teach without compromise – human life starts at the moment of conception.

The feature poses the question – ‘How, in a country where abortion is illegal, do you destroy unwanted embryos?’   How, indeed!  It would appear that a purpose of the article is the enacting of legislation around the issue of ‘assisted human reproduction’, which is an issue fraught with moral and ethical difficulties and one which the Irish government might find it hard to present to the people – bearing in mind the pro-life principles held by them as evidenced in the recent poll (see my blog for 18 November 2011). 

The Two-Minus-One Pregnancy: Commentary

The New York Times had an article recently on the termination of the life of one of a pair of twins conceived through IVF, "The Two-Minus-One Pregnancy". This is yet another aspect of the onward march of the culture of death.
I have BLOGGED previously on the issue of IVF and its consequences which include the wholesale destruction of unwanted embryos. It also objectifies children and contributes to the idea that ‘you can have whatever you want, wherever you want, whenever you want’.  Objectification of children is ‘part of the IVF mentality’, and aborting inconvenient children is both routine and encouraged.
 
The rationalisation of the action by the woman is an important aspect of the story and despite the fact that she felt guilty about proceeding with it she went ahead. Her rationalisation also highlights the central issue that IVF is an unnatural procedure. It also highlights the the cul-de-sac into which people who glorify choice are led

“Things would have been different if we were 15 years younger or if we hadn’t had children already or if we were more financially secure,” she said later. “If I had conceived these twins naturally, I wouldn’t have reduced this pregnancy, because you feel like if there’s a natural order, then you don’t want to disturb it. But we created this child in such an artificial manner — in a test tube, choosing an egg donor, having the embryo placed in me — and somehow, making a decision about how many to carry seemed to be just another choice. The pregnancy was all so consumerish to begin with, and this became yet another thing we could control.”

The article then evaluates the action in the following terms;

"For all its successes, reproductive medicine has produced a paradox: in creating life where none seemed possible, doctors often generate more fetuses than they intend. In the mid-1980s, they devised an escape hatch to deal with these megapregnancies, terminating all but two or three fetuses to lower the risks to women and the babies they took home. But what began as an intervention for extreme medical circumstances has quietly become an option for women carrying twins. With that, pregnancy reduction shifted from a medical decision to an ethical dilemma. As science allows us to intervene more than ever at the beginning and the end of life, it outruns our ability to reach a new moral equilibrium. We still have to work out just how far we’re willing to go to construct the lives we want."

It is clear that even those who are pro-abortion are uncomfortable with this action as is evident from many of the column inches that have been written about the issue.  The following link to an article on the Catholic Moral Theology BLOG entitled The ethics of reduction abortions is worth reading as is John Smeaton's BLOG on the issue

In vitro fertilisation part of the holocaust of abortion according to Argentinian Archbishop

According to a Catholic News Agency report,  Archbishop Hector Aguer of La Plata, Buenos Aires, Argentina has criticized in vitro fertilization as a technique that plays with the lives and deaths of thousands and thousands of people and called it a "new holocaust that is part of the holocaust of abortion.”
On Nov. 6, during his program, “Keys to a Better World,” Archbishop Aguer referred to the awarding of the Nobel Prize in Medicine to Robert Edwards, for his efforts to conceive the first child through in vitro fertilization.
“This belated recognition again raises the issue of the judgment that must be made regarding this technique that has spread notably throughout the world,” the archbishop said.
Archbishop Aguer pointed to “the fundamental ambiguity” that the procedure presents.  “It would seem that through the manipulation of gametes, as if they were an industrial product, a human being can be manufactured.”
He went on to note that “despite being conceived under such circumstances, the human embryo is still a personal being.” He explained that "it is a well known fact that in order to achieve a birth, a number of embryos are destroyed, and it is very common that only the best ones are chosen and the others thrown away as unusable biological material.”
Archbishop Aguer also pointed out that today there are “thousands and thousands of frozen embryos all over the world” whose fate is unknown and that a multi-million dollar industry has developed from artificial fertilization.
For this reason, he continued, in seeing the Nobel Prize awarded to the creator of in vitro fertilization, we must reflect on “the importance of recognizing the fundamental truths that have to do with the dignity of human life and its sacred nature, from conception to natural death.”
“Bringing about the birth of a child at any cost to satisfy the understandable desire of a couple to have a child must not be done,” he stressed.  “This desire must be conformed to objective ethical criteria.”
Catholic teaching is opposed to IVF because the procedure is contrary to the natural order of sexuality. The technique also involves the elimination of human embryos both inside and outside the mother’s womb, which constitutes abortion in each case.

The Folly of interfering with nature

An extraordinary (or is it extraordinary?) story appeared on the front page of the Irish Times on 14 October last, which once again underlines the folly of trying to interfere with nature. A woman in Northern Ireland, who became pregnant and bore two children through IVF procedures, was denied legal damages for alleged negligence on the part of the organisation that was supposedly helping her to conceive.

The reason given for the case against the medical facility was the fact that the children were conceived following ‘donor insemination’ – but the ‘donor’ was a ‘Caucasian (Cape Coloured)’ person, resulting in the children having darker skin that that of their mother and her husband/partner. Also, it seems that the children were ‘markedly different from each other.’ The Court judge said of the case that: ‘The court is thus being asked to venture into the complexities of the creation of life, involving a unique physical and scientific process and to develop the law to deal with an instance where harvested eggs were fertilised with what has been termed inappropriate donor sperm.’

We have read, on a number of occasions, about mix-ups in IVF clinics, resulting in a ‘white’ baby being born to black parents, and a ‘black’ baby being born to white parents. Where do the rights of the child come in? Surely this is a situation – even if none other were needed – to demonstrate the denial and lack of human rights and dignity of human beings that is involved in the use of IVF techniques.

An article in the London Independent, also on 14 October, tells us that: ‘Those who can afford it pay up to £10,000 for IVF, but a gentler technique for the treatment of infertility, which does not have the baggage associated with IVF, priced at just £174, could soon be available to all. So why are experts dragging their heels?’ The ‘real cost behind the fertility industry’s pursuit of profit’ is discussed in the article. We know that it is the pursuit of profit that drives the fertility ‘business’ but, in the meantime, it is women – and men – who suffer from, often, false promises of success. And what of the countless numbers of human beings destroyed in the process? Are they all ‘disposable’ in the eyes of the ‘fertility experts’? Apart altogether from the inhumane treatment of innocent human beings resulting from the use of IVF techniques of whatever type, and the indignity suffered by the mother, and the father, in the process, we must always bear in mind the negation - by using IVF – of God’s plan for creation that supersedes all human activity.

My Daddy's name is "donor"

A major comparative study of adults conceived by means of ‘donor’ shows how they are affected by the implications of their conception.

The study, entitled My Daddy’s name is Donor: A New Study of Young Adults Conceived Through Sperm Donation, is published under the auspices of the Commission on Parenthood’s Future in New York. The study, co-investigated by Elizabeth Marquardt, Norval D. Glenn and Karen Clark, ‘reveals stunning findings about the lives of adult offspring of sperm donation, one of the most common reproductive technologies and one that has been practiced widely in the U.S. and around the world for decades.’ Elizabeth Marquardt is one of those scheduled to speak at the ‘Fertility, Infertility and Gender’ conference that will take place at Maynooth, Ireland, from 16 to 18 June (see my blog for
15 February 2010). Commenting on the study, she said:

‘Many people think that because these young people resulted from wanted pregnancies, how they were conceived doesn’t matter to them.’

But, she says,

‘[T]his study reveals that when they are adults, sperm donor offspring struggle with serious losses from being purposefully denied knowledge of, or a relationship with, their sperm donor biological fathers.’

Some of the points made by participants in the study include that ‘Nearly half say they have feared being attracted to or having sexual relations with someone to whom they are unknowingly related’, ‘Two-thirds affirm the right of donor offspring to know the truth about their origins’, and ‘About half of donor offspring have concerns about or serious objections to donor conception itself, even when parents tell their children the truth’. These children are human beings – they are not commodities.

I wonder if the Irish Government will take note of the important findings of this study. One of the proposals put forward for discussion by the Irish Commission on Assisted Human Reproduction in 2001 concerns the issue of ‘donors’.

Makes you think, doesn’t it?

'Supreme Court judgement devalues every human life'

The recent Irish Supreme Court Judgement on the fate of the three frozen embryos has initiated a national dialogue on the issues surrounding in vitro fertilization (IVF). There have been calls for new legislation in the area and the enactment of such legislation has been promised by Health Minister Mary Harney.

In the context of the ongoing debate a colleague Séamas de Barra, has sent me a commentary on an article by Fr. Kevin Doran that appeared in the January edition of the 'Alive newspaper.

In his article of January 2010, 'Supreme Court judgement devalues every human life' [p. 4], Fr Kevin Doran says among other things:

The problem of the Roche embryos arose because, in the absence of legislation, clinics and hospitals in Ireland have begun to keep embryos in frozen storage.
Legislation is required to ensure that clinics which perform IVF only generate the number of embryos which can be safely transferred to the mother's womb in one treatment cycle.
Better still, research funding should be diverted to programmes which seek to prevent or to treat infertility, rather than simply trying to get around it.

In his commentary Mr de Barra sets out the following:

As regards the third paragraph we know that good work is being done by the likes of Dr Phil Boyle with his NaProTechnology/FertilityCare, and also by the staff of the National Association of the Ovulation Method of Ireland [NAOMI] who help those who are having difficulty having a child.

I disagree with Fr Doran that Mrs Roche's problem arises because of lack of legislation here in Ireland. The problem arises because of the practice of In Vitro Fertilization itself in Ireland. In its Instruction Donum Vitae (1987) the Vatican condemned the practice of IVF, and other unethical means of getting around infertility. The Vatican repeated the condemnation in the Instruction Dignitas Personae which is dated, September 8, 2008.

The first solution that Fr Doran recommends actually is condemned in par. 15 of Dignitas Personae:

The reason for multiple transfer is to increase the probability that at least one embryo will implant in the uterus. In this technique, therefore, the number of embryos transferred is greater than the single child desired, in the expectation that some embryos will be lost and multiple pregnancy may not occur. In this way, the practice of multiple embryo transfer implies a purely utilitarian treatment of embryos. One is struck by the fact that, in any other area of medicine, ordinary professional ethics and the healthcare authorities themselves would never allow a medical procedure which involved such a high number of failures and fatalities. In fact, techniques of in vitro fertilization are accepted based on the presupposition that the individual embryo is not deserving of full respect in the presence of the competing desire for offspring which must be satisfied.

Let us put things in context. Of 100 embryos conceived in vitro [i.e. 'on glass', in a petri dish] and frozen, only 40 survive the thawing process. Only 10% of those 40, that is 4, have any chance of being born, and that is putting it at its most optimistic. That is, the optimum success rate is 4 out of 100. The so-called "take-home baby rate" is enhanced only because of the use of multiple-embryo transfer.

In par. 16 Dignitas Personae refers to the 'blithe acceptance of the enormous number of abortions involved in the process of in vitro fertilization'. Nevertheless in par. 19 we are reminded by means of a quotation from Pope John Paul II that 'there seems to be no morally licit solution regarding the human destiny of the thousands and thousands of "frozen" embryos which are and remain the subjects of essential rights and should therefore be protected by law as human persons.' In other words, it is actually immoral to transfer these frozen embryos, whether by single-embryo transfer, or by multiple-embryo transfer, to their mother's womb. In par. 23 of Dignitas Personae we are reminded of the 'serious penalties in canon law' that those involved in abortion attract. The reference is to automatic excommunication, for being involved in, or voting for, the like.

The problem with IVF is not dissimilar to that of Humanae Vitae. The Church's authentic teachings on these matters are regarded by many priests and bishops as a dead letter, and instead, they give the laity their own private opinions on them.

It is vital that all voices should be heard on the issues at stake here and which have major implications for the right to life of the human embryo prior to implantation in the womb of a woman. Future legislation will without doubt have significant implications for the constitutional protection of the unborn in Ireland

Irish Supreme Court ruling in three embryos case

The Irish Supreme Court on Tuesday Dec. 15th rejected a request by a woman to be implanted with frozen embryos brought into being during IVF treatment. The woman’s estranged husband had refused permission for the implantation. Lawyers for the woman Mary Roche had argued that the embryos were protected by article 40.3.3. of the Irish Constitution. The five judge court upheld the High Court’s findings that the embryos are not the "unborn" within the meaning of Article 40.3.3 of the Constitution and therefore not entitled to Constitutional protection, saying that the "unborn" referred to a child within the womb and not pre-implanted embryos. The court also ruled that consent was required to proceed with the implantation

Pat Buckley, Ireland spokesman for the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC), in a statement criticised the Supreme court decision and said that the court's interpretation was contrary to international human rights law:

"The judges' interpretation of article 40.3.3 excluding human embryos from protection is wrong. This decision treats human embryos as if they are mere property, when in fact they are equal members of the human family. International human rights law does not exclude human embryos from the equal right to life upheld in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other human rights instruments. There is no genetic difference between an embryo inside or outside the body. The right to life, which is inalienable, does not change according to location.

Although it would be unethical for embryos brought into being outside the body to be implanted, it was the original decision to use IVF, and not the Roches' estrangement, which has created this tragedy in which their children will never be born. Any legislation, therefore, which may be passed following this case should ban IVF. The huge strides that have been made in the treatment of infertility using NAPRO technology will in due course render unnecessary, this illicit and outdated solution to the tragedy of infertility”

Íde Nic Mhathúna in a statement on behalf of Youth Defence said

“[T]he government needs to act to restore the protection to the human embryo which the pro-life majority presumes existed since 1983,” she added that any attempt to use the Roche v Roche judgment to introduce embryo research would be “unacceptable, and would ultimately fail since it would be very strongly opposed.”

Would my parents have destroyed me if… ?

Anyone who still seriously doubts that IVF turns children into commodities needs to take a look at this report on a Los Angeles clinic offering to screen IVF embryos for sex, hair and eye colour. The directors euphemistically call it 'cosmetic medicine'. The rest of us might describe it as eugenics.

Ethicist Dr Marie Hillard warned:

“Life is being engendered to be destroyed, with only those deemed eugenically fit allowed to live. The implications are incredible for all of us."

The Right to Life of the Human Embryo

A serious challenge has arisen in an appeal to the Irish Supreme Court in respect of the right to life of three unimplanted human embryos. Irish Times article

In a statement to the Supreme court considering the fate of the three embryos Mr Donal O’Donnell SC representing the Attorney General and the Irish State, told the court that an embryo is not an “unborn” within the meaning of Article 40.3.3 of the Irish Constitution and that, in his opinion, the destruction of fertilised embryos prior to implantation in a woman’s womb is permitted under law. He also expressed the opinion that it was not the wish of the people, when passing the 1983 pro-life amendment, to protect the pre-implanted embryo.

Ironically Mr O’Donnell is supposed to be representing the interests of the unborn child for the state in a case involving a separated mother of two who was refused leave by the High Court to have the three frozen embryos released to her against the wishes of her estranged husband.

Despite the attempt by Mr O’Donnell to limit the scope of article 40.3.3 to embryos existing “in vivo”, the Irish constitution does not limit the term “unborn” in this way. The State therefore should not introduce limitations or try to create artificial divisions between one kind of human embryo and another. To do so constitutes a form of unjust discrimination. Once an embryo is brought into existence in whatever way this occurs a new human being exists and must be protected by law from that time.

It is also hard to understand why Mr. O’Donnell saw fit to make this statement on behalf of the Attorney General and the Irish State, when the Irish people by referendum rejected an amendment to the Constitution to limit legal protection to the child implanted in the womb, in 2002. Mr O’Donnell’s statement smacks more of an attempt at political compromise than a statement of fact.

The appeal, which is being heard by a panel of 5 Judges, The Hon. Mr. Justice John L. Murray, Chief Justice, The Hon. Mrs. Justice Susan Denham, The Hon. Mr. Justice Adrian Hardiman. The Hon. Mr. Justice Hugh Geoghegan. The Hon. Mr. Justice Nial Fennelly, has been adjourned and will be revisited later this month.

New Vatican Document

In a new document, entitled Dignitas Personae, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has re-iterated the ethical unacceptability of IVF. John Smeaton's blog carries a full review of the document by Dr John Fleming, a bioethicist and corresponding member of the Pontifical Academy for Life.

This is a much-needed clarification of the Church's teaching at a time when very few people understand the moral implications of IVF and the catastrophic loss of early human life caused by the procedure.

70-year-old gives birth

A woman old enough to be a great-grandmother has given birth to a baby girl after conceiving through IVF and become the world's oldest mother. Rajo Devi, from the Haryan province of India, is apparently not worried about what will happen to the child when she and her 72-year-old husband die - almost certainly before the child reaches adulthood. They have an extended family who will look after her.

This may be the case, but there is no getting round the fact that two elderly people have deliberately created and brought into the world a child neither of them will be able to love and support into adult life.

The newspaper report is entirely positive, with the doctor who performed the ICSI procedure, a Dr Anurag Bishnoi, talking excitedly about how IVF has revolutionised the way we see fertility. It certainly has. It has turned children into goods to be created or discarded and allowed adults to indulge their selfish and unethical desires. We have nothing to be proud of.

More on Children as Commodities

A couple of days ago, I mentioned the disturbing phenomenon of people who think they can buy anything, including IVF babies of their preferred sex.

Just to confirm my worst suspicions about the Brave New World society we live in, in which children are valued only as far as they satisfy the needs of adults, LifeSite reports a couple facing jail for selling their baby on Ebay. The couple from Belgium, sold the baby for an undisclosed sum to a Dutch couple to whom they handed the baby in a hospital car park.

According to the report, this is not the first incident involving the online sale of a baby, with another case in America earlier in the year involving a newborn baby being advertised for $10,000.

The Catholic Church warned in Donum Vitae that this sort of behaviour would be the inevitable consequence of the "dynamic of violence and domination" so characteristic of abortion and IVF. The document states:

“The abortion-mentality which has made this procedure possible...leads, whether one wants it or not, to man's domination over the life and death of his fellow human beings and can lead to a system of radical eugenics.”

“The child is not an object to which one has a right, nor can he be considered as an object of ownership: rather, a child is a gift, ‘the supreme gift.’”

Children as Commodities

An incredibly depressing article cited at Monstrous Regiment of Women on women who marry for money and status, then leave their husbands for other rich men as soon as they lose their jobs.

One case mentioned in the article which has not (I think) been picked up by other commentators, is the story of the couple who paid a fortune to have identical twin boys through IVF, joking that they would have sent them back if they had been girls. In our shallow, status-obsessed world, IVF has pushed the boundaries of materialism so far that even children become commodities who can be custom-made for the right price.