Embryo transfer and other dubious “advances” in reproductive technology scarcely seem an appropriate topic for a column in the Christmas issue of The Interim, but I’m having great difficulty forgetting statements made on a recent television programme called Nova.

IVF – In vitro Fertilization (procreating a human being in a laboratory) – is now such a routine procedure that, viewers were told, somewhere in the world a test tube baby is born every day.  Doctor’s “harvest” many ova from the woman (up to seven or right according to the show), fertilize them with male sperm and observe them carefully over a three-day period.  Then, when the embryos have reached the 8, 10, or 12 cell stage, several are inserted into the woman in the hopes that at least one would implant in the uterus.

Quality control

Sound fine put in objective terms like that.  However, t doesn’t sound so great when you realize that they are describing human beings created in a sterile petri dish.  Some will be discarded because their creators don’t like the way they’re developing; others will die because they don’t implant inside their mother; still others will die if or when there are too many embryos – tiny babies – to implant at once.  These last embryos may well have passed their various tests for quality control, but most women don’t relish the prospect of giving birth to sextuplets.

It wasn’t long before pioneering doctors proposed that “excess” embryos might be frozen and stored indefinitely. The technique had been used successfully for some time by cattle breeders, so I suppose it didn’t sound too implausible.  One doctor interviewed on Nova said they “tried 30 times” before they successfully thawed two embryos.

He admitted that embryo-freezing-and-thawing procedures are still experimental.  Here are some quotes while watching the programme.  Bear in mind that, although accurate, they are out of context.

  • “there are things being done that are not done in the right way – patients understand this” (he didn’t go into what these “things being done” actually are).
  • “At any stage, embryos are at risk of being destroyed.”
  • “A new life form (curious, that one; he was talking about human beings, not Martians).
  • “Recovering about 60 per cent of embryos (that is, four out of ten dies during the freezing/thawing process).
  • “Thawing embryos that look fairly decent.”
  • “We haven’t done enough to know.”

Chilling isn’t it?

Since Nova is an American show, it zeroed in on the work of U.S. doctors.  Many criticized their government’s refusal to fund research to perfect these experimental techniques for creating babies and freezing them until – and if – it’s convenient.  The critics pointed out that lack of government funding has meant that there are no ethical limits or guidelines for experimentation.  However, there is no lack of money; one group of doctors has formed a public company and listed it on the Stock Exchange.  It sends teams out to present the prospectuses to stockbrokers, who in turn can advise their clients to invest in it as a lucrative enterprise.

It’s big business.  This research group, for example, franchises non-surgical embryo transfers and has raised $4 million to get the business off the ground.  Each try costs the clients $12,000.  It’s not always successful though and they figures the clients will try up to four times.

Polishing techniques

Ethics did crop up from time to time in the programme, although moral concerns did not appear to be an item of importance.  One person discussed animal experiments in which embryos are being split; one embryo is allowed to develop as the other is tested for genetic defects.  If the tested embryo is deemed satisfactory, the other will be allowed to live (the test embryo dies).  Viewers were told that such experiments are confined to animals for the time being, because “we’re waiting for society to accept that our motives are proper.”  In other words, they’re polishing the techniques on animals today and will transfer their attention to humans when they feel enough people are ready to accept the argument that “because it can be done it should be done.”

Whether they succeed or not, we may have to redefine “mother.”  Today, a newly-born child can have as many as five parents.  First there are the genetic parents, the couple who donate ova and sperm.  The child, created through IVF, is transplanted into the womb of a surrogate mother, who nurtures him until birth.   He is then handed to his adoptive mother and father, who will raise him.

There are many combinations and permutations of the five “parents.”  One doctor described the technology as being of benefit to sterile women: now they can have the experience of pregnancy.”

About the only point at which those interviewed drew the line is at the idea that surrogate mothers be paid for their services, over and above medical and legal expenses.  That they called “reproductive prostitution.”  But there’s nothing to stop the couple who need a surrogate mother from making a quiet deal on the side.  That’s what one couple interviewed on the programme did: although the doctor suspected a deal had been made, he avoided confirming his suspicions.

Children are a gift

It’s not easy to resolve the moral question raised by this technology.  On the one hand, it seems unfeeling and cruel to switch off the beacon of hope now shining for those couples desperate to have a child.  Nevertheless, these procedures move far too close to “playing God” for many people.  De we, as a society, assume that everyone has a right to have a child (if they want one, that is), or do we hold to our traditional view that children are a gift and a privilege not given to everyone?

Certainly, I, for one, cannot accept that children be created in a laboratory and then left to die if they’re not developing as they should.  Or that they be left in a frozen limbo, to be unfrozen and allowed to develop only if the parents or doctors wish – and if the technique works.  Even to indulge thinking in such terms – that we have a “new life form” to be manipulated to advance science; or just that they’re there, and what else should we do with them – is appalling.