Reproductive technology (Assisted reproductive technology ART), refers to the various medical interventions that have been designed with the aim of giving infertile couples a chance to get pregnant. Infertility is clinically described as the inability of a woman to conceive after trying actively for 12 months. The means used by ART involve the separation of procreation from sexual relations. Various concerns have been raised on the morality and ethicality of the new reproductive technologies that aim to treat human infertility. Even though reproductive technology is a source of hope to infertility cases, these methods are expensive, rarely successful and cause psychological harm. The debate over the issue continues as infertility cases increase and new technologies to treat the problem arise. Feminists especially have expressed concerns about the psychological consequences of the use of ART in women hence they view it as a way of reinforcing the traditional gender roles of women in reproduction which ensures that they give up control over their bodies. Lack of an agreement on whether the reproductive technologies are acceptable has led to different viewpoints from various stakeholders among them the church, medical practitioners and the society as a whole.
Discussion
Methods of reproductive technology include artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization (IVF), gamete intrafallopian transfer (GIFT), intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI), Zygote intrafallopian transfer (ZIFT) and surrogacy. The most commonly known processes of reproductive technology are artificial insemination and IVF. Artificial insemination is a medical procedure which involves the depositing of a single sperm to the woman's uterus in an attempt to get pregnant. The process requires being repeatedly done before fertilization occurs (Davies, et.al, 2012). On the other hand, IVF is a laboratory procedure in which an egg is removed from the uterus of a woman’s body, fertilized by a donated sperm and then put back to the womb of the woman to develop the pregnancy. The embryo does not need to be transferred immediately to the uterus but rather can be frozen and stored for future use. Zygote intrafallopian transfer is an IVF technique whereby the female egg and male sperm are fertilized and then implanted into the woman’s fallopian tubes. Also, intrafallopian gamete transfer is an alternative procedure which can be carried out instead of the IVF. IVF is always used to create a baby via surrogacy in case the biological mother has health complications which prohibit her from carrying a pregnancy or giving birth.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Babies have over time been viewed as a blessing or a necessity in any marriage. As such, every couple hopes to have a family made up of their children (Cohen, 1966). Then what happens to those couples who are not able to produce children? For instance, should infertile women just be given counseling to treat their psychological distress because the society views such women as useless? Further, we need to ask ourselves whether it is easy for such men and women to identify and accept their feelings of failure when diagnosed as being infertile. Further, can the infertile women and men undergo psychotherapy to come to terms with the reality that they will not be able to do something that society expects and puts great value in such as procreation? Still, why in fact does society put such a value on being able to have children? Particularly, infertility amongst the female population could, in fact, be seen purely as a social rather than a physiological or psychological problem. Therefore, the assisted reproductive technologies in a way aim to solve the problem of infertility.
Even so, part of the society does not agree with the fact that women must have children. For example, there is an argument that children are not all that important in the marriage institution. Rather, the couples only need each other to be happy and satisfied. Similarly, there is no time especially during this modern era where both men and women have equal opportunities for employment and career development, to give birth and take care of the kids. In regards to this line of argument, most couples, especially those that are financially stable have resorted to the ART methods to have children. For example, a woman may decide not to undergo the difficulties and pain of giving birth herself by choosing to pay for a surrogate mother who will then carry the pregnancy to term. In cases where the women have demanding careers, most prefer to use this method or even have their eggs frozen for a particular time until when ready to become mothers. In the US particularly, the practice has become popular among celebrity women who feel that having children at such times when their careers are blooming is not a good idea.
Despite that, most couples wishing to give birth to children normally are unable to do so because of various medical conditions. Prior to the introduction of reproductive technologies, such couples especially women faced stigmatization from the family members and society because of their inability to reproduce. Initially, the ARTs were introduced as a way of treating women suffering from infertility (Inhorn & Patrizio, 2015). It mostly involved therapies and not the complicated procedures which have been developed over time. To be fair to such women, we can say that they suffer from a disease known as biologic dysfunction. Infertility would fit into this criteria because the reproductive organs do not function as they are intended to. The assumption is applicable if we concede that it is the role of every female uterus to produce a child. As such, using the various reproductive technological procedures is necessary to fulfill the overwhelming desire of such women to have kids. However, it is not exactly correct to regard a person as sick because they cannot have a child. Even from the Bible, women have been known to suffer from infertility. For example, Sarah, Abraham’s wife was unable to give birth until God performed a miracle and she had a son, Isaac at the age of 90. On the other hand, Rachael, Jacobs’s wife was unable to have children although God answered her prayers and she had children. In such a case, we cannot blame infertility on the woman but rather agree that God is the ultimate decision maker as to whether one gives birth or not. Therefore, the church argues that the scientists in this field have evil motives in their disguise to treat the disease because, in the real sense, they have opted to develop a new process of creation to be equal or surpass Gods abilities. In its opinion, the church urges such couples to have faith and pray because everything happens for a specific reason and that God has plans for everyone in due time.
Nevertheless, evidence suggests that IVF and other related reproductive technologies lead to serious illness and disorders in small but significant proportions of some children born as a result of the procedure. Thus, if these technologies have these adverse effects, then they do not need to be approved for use. Opponents argue that there is no need for such procedures if the child born will suffer as well as be a burden to the parent’s .The claims have led to the development of new queries. For instance, what do we mean when we said substantial harm even when the child expected to have health disorders has not yet been conceived? Similarly, what type of disease would a child born through this technology have? On the same, would it be better for the child to be nonexistent to spare him or her the pain he or she is likely to face due to complications? (Davies, et.al, 2012). So, in responding to such questions, we must consider the possibility that all the standards of substantial harm apply to the children at the time of their conception and birth. Therefore, in using the reproductive technologies, those involved need to explain how the practice may harm the children. It is possible that the technology kids may suffer from diseases like cancer, or physical and mental disability .Thus, further, awareness needs to be created for the parents as well as the doctors who lack adequate knowledge on the effects of the reproductive technologies.
However, those supporting reproductive technology argue that it is better to have a sickly child than to have none at all. As a result, society needs to recognize the frustration faced by couples who wish to grow a family but are unable to achieve this on their own. There are many reasons why infertile couples feel the pressure and need to have children even though adopting is always an option .Therefore, these medical treatments give infertile couples a chance to raise children. All methods of giving birth to children should always put the well-being of the family first. The techniques need to be regulated so that society avoids doing harm to the children and families involved in the ART process (Cohen, 1966).The church has been at the forefront in opposing the use of assisted reproductive technologies. In March 1987, the Vatican issued a statement in which it emphasized the respect of human life in its origins as well as on the dignity of normal procreation which involves sexual intercourse. It saw as immoral all the practices such as artificial insemination by a donor (AID), in vitro fertilization (IVF), embryo freezing, surrogacy, and artificial insemination by the husband (AIH) which is done through masturbation in case the man has a low sperm count. Further, the Vatican further condemned the practice of IVF as a venture into the realm of immorality (Inhorn & Patrizio, 2015).
The objections by religion to masturbation used in the ART treatments are used only by a few conservatives. The individuals tend to focus much on the bible without considering the various changes which are necessary as far as man is concerned. In recent times, most theologians have considered this not to be an issue. For example, so long as the motive or reason for the act of producing sperm by masturbation is purely for the sake of procreation and not pleasure, then it can be seen as moral and not violating the scriptures. In the case of in vitro fertilization, religious taboos may be eased because the process leads to the creation of children. Similarly, the issue of sexual taboos need does not have any role in assessing the ART unless the question of its morality arises. It is necessary to note that some Islamic countries have accepted the use of IVF for married couples in regions where the clinics have been established. Furthermore, the practice has been accepted by the Jewish community in Israel, and a few clinics provide these services to a broader group of infertile women. Nonetheless, the Roman Catholic still has objections regarding the separation of procreative and conjugal aspects of marriage. The Roman Catholic Church views the aids to infertility as an intrusion to the marriage institution because it involves third parties such as the physicians and scientists, as a means of solving the infertility problem. The act was seen as an encroachment upon the covenant and exclusive relationship between the husband and wife, who are "one flesh," as well as interfering with the parent-child relationship of the family.
However, the argument that children who are not born as a result of sexual intercourse are deprived of "proper perfection" has no scriptural, reasoned or scientific basis. As such, the stand by the Roman Catholic may be seen as a mistake which needs changing, since children are an important aspect of all individuals who wish to go into marriage. Further, ethicists believe that instead of spending a lot of money to come up with ways of creating children for the infertile couples, they need to focus on caring for the many children who are homeless or lack appropriate care. So, those for the ART need to justify their reasons for spending a lot of much money on developing ART when problems associated with overpopulation, such as famine, already receive insufficient funding? The ART processes provide for a population increase hence in the future; it could contribute to the population problem? Thus, the church prefers adoption because it would ensure the proper health of the born children as opposed to the worry caused for the unborn infant. For them, reproductive technology encourages an idolatrous view of parenthood which values genetic parenting to the process of nurturing a baby. The practice will then lead to people seeing genetic children as products rather than human beings in their right. Treatments that involve laboratory collection of the genetic material necessary to create a child have raised questions. For example, IVF involves the creation of an embryo outside the womb or removal of the fetus from the womb. Such has raised questions about the moral status and rights of the fetus.
On the other hand, opponents of the ART argue that children born out of these processes are likely to feel less human because of the nature in which they were conceived or brought into the world. Additionally, they can face stigmatizations from those born in usual ways thus can result in psychological problems (Anderson, et.al, 2016). Even so, this cannot be true but on the contrary, such children will view the reproduction processes as a reason for their existence. On the other hand, the procedures are likely to determine the future sadness or happiness of the children by establishing their moral behavior. However, no one is supposed to regret their creation even though at some point in life, it is possible that the children conceived as a result of ART or even the normal ones experience situations which make them wish not to have been born. There is no valid reason to believe that children brought into the world by ART may feel and exhibit more sadness than children who came about as a result of conception after sexual intercourse between a man and woman. In fact, the children may understand the extremes that their parents had to undergo in order to ensure that they were born. We have few exceptional cases, where ART is used as a preference over normal sexual intercourse, for example by lesbian mothers who refuse to engage in sexual relations with a man, we can also question whether the act itself is central to the ethical conclusion. .
Medics, however, agree that there are various health risks to women who undergo these procedures. Such is the main concern for the opponents of ART since the whole practice tremendously affects women physically and psychologically (Vaughn, 2010). For instance, drugs such as Clomid (used for the purpose of facilitating ovulation), Perganol (human menopausal gonadotropin) and Lupron which substantially suppresses the pituitary glands creating a sense of menopause in a woman, can lead to serious side effects to the woman such as development of an ectopic pregnancy; high rates of complications like hemorrhage, hypertension, caesarean birth; psychological and emotional problems due to high failure rates of conceiving attempts, the high number of miscarriages and the selective reduction of the excess fetuses. Children conceived by ART are at a high risk of developing congenital disabilities. Still, technological embryos are likely to result in the birth of twins hence the high order multiples increase their risk of low birth weight, premature births, high number of infant deaths and lastly multiple long-term disabilities. Peer reviewed journals have suggested a potential link between kids born from ART and congenital disabilities e.g. heart conditions, genetic diseases, childhood cancer as well as decreased levels of cognition.
Cloning has become a controversial issue in the recent past with people having different ideas on whether the practice is acceptable or not. While engaging in discussions about the ART procedure, the issue becomes the genetic determinism. Most people argue that is not right to impose one’s genetic identity on another without their consent. Even so, we should note that the idea of having an exceptional character is against the principles of modern science which seek to help infertile couples have children of their own. As such, cloning is wrong for the simple fact that it interferes with the autonomy of a person.
The fact that a human being was made deliberately in a lab and not by the combination of the female and male gametes is in itself a humiliating feeling. Further, the means of cloning does not guarantee the good tolerability of reproduction for instance how the clone will adapt to the world once born. The big question is how the process will affect the clone in case the advancements reach a level where they present a risk to themselves and the immediate environment. Still, people have doubts as to whether the clones will have the ability to reason just like the human beings .Similarly, we need to ask ourselves whether the practice of cloning is merely fulfilling the scientists’ needs of being able to create people. In some rare cases, however, cloning may be useful in cases where childless couples wish to have a genetically related child. Still, a woman may want a genetic child without necessarily having sex or using donated sperms. If we look at it in this concept, then it would be easier for us to understand why cloning needs to be accepted as a reproductive technology.
Conclusion
Reproductive technologies have given human beings the mean to manipulate Gods plans for creation and reproduction. The biotechnologies such as IVF, embryo research, AID, cloning are anti- woman, anti-God and anti-social. Even so, the practices are seen as a hope for couples who cannot get children in a natural manner. Lack of proper standards and adequate research put both the woman and the unborn child’s lives in jeopardy. The increased risks of dangerous diseases such as ovarian and breast cancer among others further supports the claims of those who are against the use of these biotechnologies. It is unethical to let the women, their spouses, and the children be subjected to psychological, physical and spiritual torment caused by the processes. It is the responsibility of everyone to ensure that such practices are stopped because they are not helpful to the patient and are against our religious and moral beliefs. We need to ask ourselves whether it is right to experiment on women under the disguise of curing infertility, finding a cure for intractable diseases and building better humans. Deeper research needs to be carried out to help in understanding the effects of assisted reproductive technologies on the involved parties in particular women.
References
Anderson, Bruchalski, M. (2016). Assisted Reproductive Technologies are Anti-Woman . Usccb.org . Retrieved 22 November 2016, from http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/abortion/assisted-reproductive-technologies-are-antiwoman.cfm
Cynthia B. Cohen. (1966). Give Me Children or I Shall Die!" New Reproductive Technologies and Harm to Children. The Hastings Center Report Vol. 26, No. 2 (Mar. - Apr., 1996), pp. 19-27
Davies, M. J., Moore, V. M., Willson, K. J., Van Essen, P., Priest, K., Scott, H., ... & Chan, A. (2012). Reproductive technologies and the risk of birth defects. New England Journal of Medicine , 366 (19), 1803-1813.
Inhorn, M. C., & Patrizio, P. (2015). Infertility around the globe: new thinking on gender, reproductive technologies and global movements in the 21st century. Human reproduction update , dmv016.
Pearson, Y. (2006). Never let me clone? EMBO reports , 7 (7), 657-660.
Vaughn, L. (2010). Bioethics: principles, issues, and cases.
