Repeated pro-life calls for a moratorium – or a halt – to in-vitro fertilization, have fallen on deaf ears. Answers as to the impact of this technology will have on human society, lag far behind its growing use. “Baby Craving” has become big business according to a recent Life Magazine article, creating a huge demand for new baby-making techniques.

Is it possible to control the rapid advancing technologies associated with reproduction? Perhaps more to the point, does society posses the collective wisdom and integrity necessary for control? Or has technological the technological imperative “what can be done, what must be done,” coupled with a dramatic decline in medical ethics, rendered the entire debate academic? Sadly the latter would appear to be the case as recent events in Winnipeg testify.

A mere eight months after it was established, the reputation of Manitoba’s only in-vitro fertilization clinic has been sullied by reported breaches of ethical protocol, suspensions, and resignations.

Prior to the opening of the clinic, representatives from the League for Life in Manitoba were invited to meet with the IVF team headed by Dr. Ron Livingstone. The League for Life had publicly expressed grave concern about the loss of, and disregard for, human life which is inherent in the practice of IVF. In addition, fears had been expressed concerning the impact IVF will have on the very core of human society – the family.

At the meeting, Dr. Livingstone and the nurse coordinator of the program, Edna Mattson, assured the League that they were committed to a strict protocol. A protocol which would require, among other things that all candidates for IVF come from long-term, stable unions; that no experimentation on embryos be carried out; that no more than six eggs would be fertilized; and, that all embryos would be implanted in the mother. (The League also opposed the freezing of embryos, a procedure which was not prohibited in the protocol.)

There are no uniform guidelines governing IVF clinics in Canada and by comparison, the protocol set down for the Winnipeg clinic was exacting. Despite grave misgivings and continued opposition to the practice of IVF, what little confidence we had that abuses could be minimized, if not eliminated, rested in Dr. Livingstone and Ms. Mattson.

In late August, information from an unknown source revealed that Dr. Henry Cheng, a senior scientist with the team, had been suspended two weeks earlier for breaching the programme protocol. Vice-president of medical services for the Health Sciences Centre, Dr. Don Carlow, subsequently confirmed the suspension, but refused to elaborate, stating that an inquiry had been undertaken.

(Had the information not been leaked, would the public have been told? Probably not. What then of public accountability in this field of technology?)

Speculation and rumor mounted, the most persistent suggested that Dr. Cheng had mixed up vials of sperm and eggs, and that a woman’s eggs had been fertilized by the wrong man’s sperm. In order to allay the public’s fears about these dreadful rumors, Dr. Carlow stated, patient safety had never been threatened!

The fact that the destruction of three human lives was not recognized as the ultimate “threat to patient safety”; underscores the dramatic decay which has taken place in ethical thinking. As well, it highlights the unique conundrum confronting medicine and society today.

Daily at the Health Sciences Centre, doctors are involved in the destruction of human life, embryonic and fetal. The Health Sciences Centre houses Manitoba’s largest abortuary , performing over 1,000 abortions each year. However, the doctors who perform abortions have not been suspended. Indeed the contrary is true, they are praised for their “compassion” and praised fro their “work.”

So, while doctors on one floor work to “create” babies in Manitoba’s only IVF clinic, doctors on another floor are busy killing them with impunity.

Dr. Cheng’s suspension did not end in the troubles of the fledgling clinic. Early in September the hospital announced that Dr. Livingstone, Edna Mattson and a third doctor, Andre Leroux, had all resigned from the programme. The resignations, it was alleged, had nothing to do with Dr. Cheng’s activities.

Whether this is true or not, the departure of Dr. Livingstone and Ms. Mattson is cause for grave concern about the ethical future of the clinic. If the ethical protocol of the programme could not be maintained, it is doubtful that is can be maintained at all.

The League for Life subsequently wrote to Dr. Carlow requesting answers to the following questions: (1) Will the report of the enquiry committee be made public? (2) Are any changes to the present protocol contemplated, and if so, when will the public be advised? (3)What steps will be taken to prevent future breaches of protocol? (4) What mechanisms exist in the programme protocol to ensure public accountability in the use of this technology?

To date, the answers to these questions have not been forthcoming.