Blogger Priest

A few years ago I grappled with the topic of FROZEN EMBRYO ADOPTION. Prior to the definitive decision of the Holy See, I examined the various arguments on both sides of the debate. This was an argument between men and women counted within the orthodox Catholic camp. It did not directly regard a controversy with liberal dissenters. The inspiration for the reflection was a paper prepared by a close friend for her ethics class.

Dr. Germain Grisez (a philosopher), Dr. William May (a theologian), and Fr. Thomas Williams were on one side and on the other was the late Msgr. William Smith, a moral theologian and Thomist who was known as tough and very traditional. The Holy See would eventually side with Msgr. Smith.

If nothing can be done to avert the death sentence facing frozen embryos, then what purpose would embryonic adoption serve? One critic remarked that the adoption was okay but not the thawing and implantation. Is there something contradictory to this logic? Is it not disingenuous to declare such adoption morally licit while condemning any attempted thawing and implantation?

It would seem to me that embryonic adoption by necessity refers to the whole process (from adoption to implantation) and that any particular distinctions remain simply helpful abstractions. What constitutes embryonic adoption other than the implantation of thawed out embryos? The first part cannot be defined as something distinct from the necessary operation. The whole sequence (adoption, implantation and birth) is either morally right or it is immoral.

But maybe the contradiction is mine? Msgr. Smith might contend that the “whole process” that must be considered begins with the initial egg harvesting and fertilization, which the Church clearly teaches is wrong and immoral. Msgr. Smith would claim that if any part of this series of events is illicit, then the whole business is forbidden.

The very word, “adoption,” signifies several things: that the embryos are human persons (not a commodity) and that there is a maternal bond, albeit juridical and not biological. As far as natural law is concerned, which could be argued to prohibit such adoption, one might make contrary correlations. There is hardly anything natural about sustaining human embryos in frozen cocktails. It would seem more in tune with natural law to restore the embryos to a natural unfrozen state and to deposit them into the type of place where the Creator intended them to exist, in the womb. If half of the frozen embryos survive the thawing process, and still fewer undergo a successful implantation; does this not parallel the natural course of things? After all, many embryos are regularly lost and reabsorbed by the woman’s body, often without her awareness.

A serious charge is made, that the doctor who thaws out and implants the embryo is guilty of murder. I would hesitate to say this unless he and his clients were also the ones who originally harvested and fertilized them. A declaration of guilt toward those seeking to adopt embryos seems to ignore their pro-life sympathies and efforts.

Further, if our emphasis is upon the shortcomings of current science and the insistence of a 100% thawing survival rate, then authorities argue that frozen embryos must be left in cryopreservation. This is unreasonable. A 100% success rate is statistically impossible, no matter what technology might develop. Some of the embryos themselves may never have been viable. Similarly, no such success rate can be achieved for implantation. Normal pregnancies sometimes have complications and there is even a mortality rate for mothers. This last fact shows something of the courage that women possess in wanting to adopt these embryos rejected by their biological parents.

It seems overly pragmatic to base its legitimacy upon feasibility statistics and failure rates. There might be some weight to the “wait” argument, if embryos could be frozen indefinitely without harm. However, we know that this is not the case. There is a definite shelf-life, maybe as short as five years. There is no intent in embryonic adoption to kill the embryos. Indeed, it might be argued that the loss of some or even most of them in a desperate attempt to save them would be an application of the Catholic principle of double-effect.

Father Thomas Williams says that

Given the current state of medical science, the only thing that can be done to save the lives of those persons is gestation in a woman’s womb. Most women aren’t called to make this sacrifice, but those who feel called should not be discouraged from doing so. . . . An ethical analysis of embryo adoption cannot be based principally on the consequences we foresee. We must ask ourselves what the right thing is to do for these little persons. Sometimes doing the right thing carries with it unpleasant consequences, or mixed results. But to condition our treatment of persons by the possible effects that it will have on others would be to reduce those persons to a means, and our morality would decay into a utilitarian calculus. In fact, speaking of negative consequences, the condemnation of embryo adoption sends out a very inconsistent message regarding the sanctity of human life. On the one hand, we denounce abortion as the killing of innocent human persons; on the other hand, we refuse to help those embryonic persons already in existence. We simply can’t have it both ways (ZENIT Interview 050605).

Msgr. William Smith must immediately change the terms of the debate. He does not believe there is any such thing as embryonic adoption. He classifies this as just a slightly different kind of surrogate pregnancy which has been condemned by the Church (see Donum Vitae). While one critic contended that Msgr. Smith does not extend moral culpability far enough, I think a more extensive reading of his view would show that he would place the doctor in the same circle of culpability with the would-be parents.

While it sidesteps the philosophical discussion to some degree and relies upon Church authority, the instruction, Donum Vitae (1987) taught that “The fidelity of the spouses in the unity of marriage involves reciprocal respect of their right to become a father and a mother only through each other.” A great deal depends upon interpretation because the document addressed the problem of couples having eggs harvested and fertilized which is at variance with those who simply want to “receive” and give a “home” to a child already conceived.

While Msgr. Smith uses Latin terms for his distinctions and appeals to St. Thomas; however, I can assure the reader that Dr. William May is also a friend of the perennial philosopher of the Church. Much depends upon what they associate with the terms. Msgr. Smith, notes the finis operas as “the wife becom[ing] a nine-month surrogate” and the finis operantis as the so-called “adoption”. Along the lines of his reasoning, it does not matter how pro-life or loving or generous these prospective parents might be— surrogate motherhood is everywhere and always wrong and the adoption is a farce because they have no right to the embryo.

The categorization of the adoptive mother as a surrogate is crucial to Msgr. Smith’s argument. He defines the proper mother as strictly the biological one, not an adoptive parent. But, if a juridical relationship is indeed possible, then the new parent would still be receiving her own “adopted” embryos into her womb. There is also the question of the medical personnel who would do the implantation.

If any of these three elements is immoral, then the whole business is wrong. Applied to the doctor, my friend and Confirmation god-daughter claimed that the finis operas is the embryonic implantation and that this is condemned by Donum Vitae. However, it is precisely IVF (in vitro fertilization) that is denounced, the stage that happened prior to the adoption, thawing, and implantation. While implantation would sometimes follow, the fact it does not always is the reason for this question of adoption. We must not force Church documents to say more than they actually do say.

Targeting the doctor further, my friend makes note of the consequences that flow from the thawing process and makes the high fatality rate “the crux of the problem”. It is true that Donum Vitae condemns the cryopreservation of embryos; however, this is a bad situation that we have inherited. We are presuming that those involved with the adoption process also find this practice abhorrent, and by thawing out the embryos, hope to return some normalcy. We are seeking now, not to freeze embryos, or to perpetuate their arctic limbo, but to give those that survive a chance and those that do not, peace and dignity. It is not clear that Donum Vitae would have condemned adoptive parents of embryos and those assisting them of the kind of “manipulation” that the congregation wanted halted. The intention throughout this process is not to destroy the embryos but to assure their survival and life. The late Pope Paul VI was very clear that we did not have to use every extraordinary means to maintain human life. I cannot imagine anything more extreme than freezing human beings in a mixture cooled by liquid nitrogen. Thus, a high mortality rate in an attempt to save them, while unfortunate, might be justified.

Keeping the embryos frozen is not a real answer, as it constitutes in itself an offense against human dignity and the person. The embryo has a right to life befitting its inherent teleology. The genuine object of the moral act here is to make possible the embryo’s development to its proper end, birth into a human family. While the original parents used a few embryos and abandoned the rest, an unlawful utilitarian approach, the adoptive parents seek to give all the embryos a chance at a normal life, even if that chance is slim.

Surrogate motherhood is wrong because it breaches the expression of corporeal love between spouses from the natural transmission of human life. It cheapens and clouds the real meaning of being a parent and the family. Once the damage is done, and the embryos are created, there is a moral obligation to transfer them to their mother’s womb as soon as possible. Despite the artificial intervention at the beginning, the womb is the embryo’s proper home and the only place where it has a chance of survival. However, and this is very important, the embryo has a right to life independent from the receptivity or acceptance of parents. This is true in the case of abortion and this remains true in the sad case of stored embryos.

Transferring the embryo to an adoptive mother, when the natural one is unwilling or unable to do so, must be distinguished from surrogate motherhood if it is to be a legitimate option. Granting that prenatal adoption is possible, there is arguably no detriment to the marital unity or any disruption to the family relationships. It would express their generous and selfless openness to human life in respects to children whose parents were diseased or who had abandoned their responsibilities.

Maurizio P. Faggioni, O.F.M. writes:

This solution, suggested as an to save embryos abandoned to certain death, has the merit of taking seriously the value of the embryo’s life, found in such jeopardy, and of courageously accepting the challenge of cryopreservation. It seeks to check the evil effects of a disordered situation; however, the disordered situation itself within which ethical reason must enter to function in this case profoundly colours the attempts at a solution. In fact, there are serious questions which cannot be concealed: in the first place, the fear that such a singular adoption might not be able to avoid the dehumanizing criteria of efficiency which govern the technology of artificial reproduction.

Is it possible to exclude all forms of selection? Is it possible to avoid the situation in which embryos are produced in order to be adopted? Is it possible to foresee a transparent relationship between those centres which illicitly produce embryos and those in which they are licitly transferred into adoptive mothers? Do we not run the risk of legitimizing and even promoting, unwittingly and paradoxically, a new form of objectification and manipulation of human embryos, and more generally, of the human person?

I have differed from my friend on the object of the moral act, but as for the finis operantis, we can agree that the intention is good or, at least, indifferent. (Of course, this would not be the case if the woman merely saw her pregnancy as a means to an end, with no enduring relationship or bond with the child. She will have the flesh and receptive womb of a mother; but she must also have a mother’s mind, heart and soul.) Circumstances aside, Msgr. Smith says that the whole business of adopting embryos collapses because the finis operis is evil (implantation and thawing). However, I suggested that it was IVF proper and the freezing itself that were condemned as immoral by the Church. In any case, the real moral object of the action is to insure the embryo’s natural development to its proper end as a member of a family, albeit through adoption. This differs somewhat from Geoffrey Surtrees in that he considers the object of the act to be the “home” that the woman makes of her womb for the embryonic child. Germain Grisez notes that there is more to it: the object is the woman having the embryo removed from cryopreservation, implanted in her womb, and then nurturing that child there as any mother would. The woman who adopts and carries an embryo is not simply an instrument to save a child’s life; she becomes the child’s mother. There is a metaphysical or ontological transformation. A bond is created that will remain throughout this life, and forever in the next.

I argued, apparently wrongly, that there may be both a legitimate type of embryonic adoption and an illegitimate form. The external actions may be the same, but an errant motivation could make a permissible act, at least according to some, seriously wrong and akin to surrogate motherhood. If a woman did not have it as her object to start a bond as a mother to a child, a perpetual relationship with dire responsibilities, then she would fall under the condemnations of Donum Vitae against surrogate parentage. It would be an affront to the child’s innate human dignity. Indeed, it would also corrupt her own dignity as a parent. Such motherhood must not be understood as a means to an end. Embryonic adoption, if it is to be legitimate, requires a maternal disposition and change of the whole person.

My friend argued that frozen embryo adoption, and I would object to narrowing the focus of adoption to the ownership of a tray of frozen embryos, incurs “serious moral condemnation.” Do you really think this would incite punishment from God’s justice? While a verdict has since been given, at the time this discussion first took place, the voice of the Church was ambiguous and those who worked at the John Paul II Pontifical Institute seemed to gravitate to the other side of the debate, yes, even commending those who would make the sacrifice.

Are the frozen embryos simply to be surrendered to their fate? My friend argued, and the Holy See confirmed, the answer is yes. The embryos must be left in cryopreservation indefinitely. The heart-breaking problem remains: freezing does not preserve them indefinitely. Unless there is a major leap in technology, and I suspect that voices from critics like Msgr. William Smith will also object against the use of these (like artificial wombs), then we are condemning the embryos, human beings, to certain death. This is more than an abstract moral debate. Some lives will be saved if we act; however, all will die if we do not. Knowing the full implications, we are destined to suffer in conscience about this matter?

Given the difference of opinion about the morality of embryonic adoption, and I must admit that prior to the Holy See’s negative verdict, I leaned in its favor, I was troubled about the possible material cooperation in evil. Throughout, I had a nagging concern about the intrusion of a third party in the process of marital fecundity, the true nature of motherhood (as more than a receptacle or home for the embryo) and on how exactly embryonic adoption expresses the full giving of the spouses to one another. Obviously the principle of appropriation that applies in the transplant of organs could not apply to the implantation of a human being who is a distinct being.

Let me rehash and clarify some of the most pertinent points, as I see them:

1. Magisterial ethicists and theologians are agreed that the frozen embryos came to exist through an immoral and illicit intervention on the part of medical personnel and parents.

2. As to whether or not Donum Vitae, issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (headed by Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI), forbade embryonic adoption, there was some disagreement. As the congregation so often did, it was proposing guidance on a specific question and was not seeking to promulgate a negative law that would rule universally over every case and those involved. Donum Vitae was directed to the problem of harvesting eggs, artificially inseminating them, and keeping them in cold storage if not used with implantation. It would seem that the first half of this problem does not apply; although Msgr. Smith refuses to allow this distinction, claiming in some sense, that the biological parents are made direct agents for those potential parents who want to adopt unused embryos. Father Williams, Dr. May and Dr. Grisez would no doubt argue that the culpability ends with the first couple and while it is wrong for a mother to spurn her child; still those wishing to adopt would not be contaminated with any culpability. If what the adoptive parents desire to do is judged appreciably different (in species) from the natural parents, then the central point argued by Msgr. Smith would be compromised. Further, the full consideration of the question of frozen embryos had not been considered when the instruction was released and it could hardly immediately rule out something like embryonic adoption that was not yet a scrutinized or perfected avenue of action.

3. Every human being is a gift from God, even the recently conceived embryo. Does not every child have a right to be born? Msgr. Smith seems to put the gravity on procreation and the conjugal act. Critics would argue that we are dealing with a human being already conceived and in need of assistance. It sounds to me as if the sides are talking at cross-purposes. There is a debate, but they are not entirely on the same page.

4. The object of choice for the one couple is adoption, something that is perfectly licit. The object of choice for the other couple is artificial insemination and reproduction which is illicit and wrong. It involves third-party intervention and the side-stepping of the conjugal act, thus alienating procreation from the good of fides, the unitive dimension.

5. It may one day be possible to remove an embryo from a womb, offer DNA repair, and return it safely into the mother. A general prohibition against embryonic adoption might also have the sad consequence of preventing medical intervention to save and/or to treat unborn children in the womb. Another question that is already being discussed is the morality of transferring a child from a diseased womb to a healthy one when an emergency arises. How we decide on embryonic adoption will have far-reaching consequences. Msgr. Smith insists that there is no such thing as embryonic adoption and that the distinctions made represent a kind of slide-of-hand.

Statistics show that Ectopic pregnancies are 17 times greater for the implantation of frozen over fresh embryos. This can be quite problematic for the mother and the fact that she knows the risk demonstrates something of the courage it takes to make this decision. While 50% of the embryos survive thawing, live births of previously frozen embryos only have a 16.8% survival rate over 29.7% for fresh embryos. The procedure, which is not certain, also costs between $6,000 to $9,000; not cheap by any means. We did not have unlimited time to make a decision about this question. It would seem that a high statistical failure rate would not in itself make embryonic adoption morally prohibitive.

Even though there may be 400,000 frozen embryos available, not all of them can be legally adopted. Most couples oppose the donation of embryos and either keep them cryogenically frozen, or if too expensive, have them destroyed in a saline solution and cremated. What we see here is the same mentality that we observe in abortion. Women will make the nonsensical statement that “They could never allow their children to be raised by strangers,” and thus prefer to terminate the pregnancies, thus robbing their children of any life at all— the height of selfishness!

I am not going to get into a big discussion of ectogenesis, as it will take us away from the topic at hand. However, if such should ever leave the sphere of science fiction, it will raise its own serious concerns. Many possibilities are even now being explored. A means may be achieved where a uterus from a cadaver might be transplanted to an animal or DNA re-sequencing might provide a womb capable of sustaining an embryo to birth. Professor Carl Wood actually implanted human embryos into sheep as part of an experiment that fortunately failed. An artificial womb capable of supporting implantation and supporting embryonic development is being theorized by researchers. Except for the most serious emergencies, such methods if perfected would seem to offer excessive danger to the embryo and raise too many questions for children who would look to an animal or a machine as their birth-mother.

For Embryonic Adoption

I have borrowed these citations and information “for” and “against” from Human Life Review, “Where Do Frozen Embryos Belong?” by Brian Caulfield.

My old professor, Dr. William May is one of the chief defenders of embryonic adoption and has a whole section on it in his most recent book:

I believe that the moral object specifying the human act of a woman who seeks to rescue a frozen embryo is not an act of surrogacy, nor (is it) to substitute for the relation to the father a mere arrangement with a technician. What precisely is the object? (It is) the adoption of a frozen embryo, a human child abandoned by those who have generated it. (It) is to give the adopted child a home.

Bishop Elio Sgreccia, of the Pontifical Academy for Life, said that embryo adoption has “an end which is good” and cannot be dismissed as illicit. But given the high failure rate of implantation and the fact that the process of freezing and thawing may cause many embryos to suffer genetic damage, he concludes, “Can we really counsel women to do this? It would mean counseling heroism . . . The issue is one big question mark. The point is we should never have gone down this road to begin with.”

Against Embryonic Adoption

Mary Geach, an English philosopher, as well as a wife and mother, could not disagree more. Dr. May summarizes her argument,

She claims that if a woman makes her womb available to the child of strangers and allows herself to be made pregnant by means of a technical act of impregnation, she shares in the evil of in vitro fertilization . . . she ruins reproductive integrity… By allowing herself to be made pregnant by the technician’s art a woman engages in a highly defective version of the marital act.

Brian Caulfield writes:

To me, the choice of adopting an embryo makes a woman redefine herself in terms of something that is at the root of her being: her ability to get pregnant, bear new life, become a mother. To separate this inherent capacity from the intimacy of conjugal relations goes too far. It not only separates a wife from her husband, by interposing another impregnating party; it separates a woman from herself if she uses her womb merely as an instrument for the good end of saving a life.

Names of some in favor of embryonic adoption: Dr. William E. May, Fr. Thomas Williams, Dr. Jerome Lejeune, Dr. Charles Rice, Dr. Germain Grisez, Fr. Philip Boyle, Geoffrey Surtees and Dr. Dianne Irving.

Names of some against embryonic adoption: Msgr. William Smith, Dr. Daniel Sulmasy, O.F.M., Mary Geach and Brian Caulfield.

DISCUSSION

FATHER JOE:

I spent time praying about this subject of embryonic adoption. Several inherent problems nagged me from the very first. The doctor or technician is a third party and such involvement is generally forbidden when we are speaking about the subject of human fertility. The act by which women become pregnant is naturally the marital act: sexual intercourse between a husband and wife. Several years ago there was a program called GIFT which permitted a husband and wife to engage in the sexual act and then, immediately afterwards, doctors intervened to facilitate the meeting of the sperm and an egg cell. While some thought it would pass muster, it was still criticized for the problem of artificial manipulation. Here, in embryonic adoption, there is no marital act at all. Indeed, some are saying that a woman need not be married to undergo the implantation procedure. That brings with it a whole set of additional problems.

Can she remain blameless, just because the embryo is not from her egg and the sperm that joined with it is not from her husband?

ANNIE:

I have been reading many thoughts on both sides of the frozen embryo issue and I would like to share my thoughts. First, I want to make clear the distinction between adopting a frozen embryo already created and requesting a donor to create a frozen embryo. Clearly the request for the creation falls under IVF and/or surrogacy. Now, regarding embryonic adoption, the act of adopting and implanting the frozen child could not be considered surrogate motherhood. If it is then one could easily argue that normal adoption is a form of surrogacy; another womb carries the child for the couple which has removed “the child’s right from being born from a father and mother known to him and bound to each other by marriage.” This also poses that the act of a normal adoption betrays the couples right of becoming parents only through each other (CCC 2376). We, of course, know that the Church approves the adoption of an abandoned child (CCC 2379).

So, we must remove surrogacy from the argument; but what about IVF? We know that the method or techniques required for IVF are morally unacceptable for two reasons: it undermines the dignity of the child while allowing another dominion over the sacred union of husband and wife (CCC 2377) and it creates extra ‘unwanted’ embryos. Now it is in the term ‘abandoned’ where I believe the adoption of the embryos should be allowed by the Church. According to issue 2379 in the Catholic Catechism, infertile couples have two choices, they can express their generosity by offering themselves to a life of service to others or they can “adopt abandoned children”. Are these embryos not abandoned? Yes, they are; they are no longer desired by their biological parents and are left to die. One person argued that because the act of the original IVF was a sin, the act of adopting the embryos becomes a moral wrong. But was the act that produced the child adopted in a legitimized way not a sin, referring to either sex outside of marriage or the act of rape? Here too we can argue that the ends does not excuse the means, for we offer women and men an option to rid themselves of their responsibility to care for a child produced through the act of sex, allowing them to continue without care for the consequences of their sin. The issue also addresses the possibility of the adoption of the embryos to facilitate a demand; but in America the legitimizing of adoption has created an inflated demand for white babies in which many women will get pregnant just to sell their child. This makes the adoptive parents culpable of the sin by facilitating the demand. We have to remember that there are many who do not follow the law of the Church and will do as they please, but we who do follow the laws will not contribute to the sin by having the embryo created. The issue is not in the creation once the child is created but in the dignity, worth and the status of the life of that child, whether he/she is at the end of fetal development or at the beginning. In actuality, by adopting these abandoned children, we are returning the will of God over their lives to them. If I am wrong in my thinking, please guide me properly to the will of God.

KEVIN:

I have a question to which I legitimately don’t know the answer.

First, I am a new parent of a baby girl (Abigail) who started life as an embryo that my wife and I adopted (we don’t know the parents to this day). Since a part of the process is at the root of my question, let me tell you a piece of our story:

We adopted 5 frozen embryos from the biological parents. They were frozen (as is customary) in ‘strips’- one strip had 3 embryos on it (the one we thawed), the other has 2 (still ‘in the freezer’).

Of the 3 embryos we thawed, 1 died as part of the thawing process. It’s my understanding that when a frozen embryo dies at this stage, the root cause is actually imperfections in the outer cells that get exacerbated by the freezing process. (They actually get irreparably damaged as part of the freezing process; we just don’t know about the damage until thawing).

This left us with 2 to implant. One took hold and grew into Abby, the other died/was passed ‘naturally’.

My understanding is that these statistics are perfectly in line with broad-based averages: 33% die during the thawing process; 50% of those left die/pass/miscarriage after being implanted; the rest are born 9 months later.
Finally, my question: Has my immediate desire for children contributed to putting the embryos (kids) in my charge at additional risk?

What if, in the future, a thawing process is discovered that kills less than 33%? What if there are fertility drugs discovered that increase the odds of implantation to something greater than 50%?

Now I am operating under the assumption that the embryos can remain in a frozen state indefinitely (e.g. a woman in Israel recently delivered twins from 12 year old frozen embryos). So is leaving the embryos frozen for now the safest course of action FOR THEM?

FATHER JOE:

Some ethicists would argue that leaving them frozen might be the only immediate course of action. However, I am not sure how long they can be kept frozen. There is also evidence that this process and the length of cryogenic preservation also degrade the odds for later success with thawing and implantation. As you could see in the post, some argue against embryonic adoption altogether while others contend that it is a selfless and noble pro-life effort, no matter what the odds.

(That is why many of us waited for a definitive answer about it from the Magisterium. The Church had already given a negative verdict to surrogate pregnancy as such, but of course, this was argued as a different question. Now the Holy See has spoken and embryonic adoption is not an option at all for faithful Catholics.)

That makes my earlier speculation rather mute. Rather than directly address your questions, what I can do is praise God for the precious child that survived the process for your little family. Abby is still a miracle of God and I will keep you all in my prayers.

NOT A JOKE:

Have you heard about celebrities wearing frozen embryos in lockets?

http://swiftreport.blogs.com/news/2005/08/more_celebritie.html

FATHER JOE:

I was curious to see how long it took for someone to pick that up. But I am assured that it is a joke. The fake news story reports that certain movie stars and celebrities (like Lindsay Lohan) have embraced the fad of embryonic adoption, but wear them in lockets around their necks, still in cryogenic suspension. Such would reduce human beings to jewelry! If true it would have been all over the news, the biggest thing since the Nazis made lampshades and soap out of Jewish people.

See part 2 of this discussion and the Verdict from ROME.

Filed under: Marriage, Morality, Pro-Life, Sexuality | Leave a comment »