WORLD Magazine Library powered by Amazon
Term Life Insurance at Savings up to 75%!
Logos Bible Software for Bible Study
Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Too many babies?
Over at ABC News is an article questioning whether it’s time for the United States to follow the example of many European countries and start limiting the number of embryos that can be implanted during a round of in vitro fertilization. Such a move would have the support of individuals like Arthur Caplan, director of the Center of Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania. He believes doctors have an ethical responsibility to do whatever they can to prevent multiple births.
“I have long argued that nobody should be putting more than four embryos into any woman because of the high risk of super multiple pregnancies, which are hugely dangerous to newborns,” said Caplan.
Thoughts?
Topic: Issues, WorldMagBlog
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
back to top24 Comments to “Too many babies?”
I recall the begining of humanity where our first parents (Adam & Eve……..not Adam & Steve) were commanded by God to be fruitful and multiply. This article states the complete opposite of God’s desire for humanity: that is, science once again trying to replicate God.
Even Richard Dawkins is finding out that is impossible………
Report comment as offensive
I’m all for it. If a woman has, say, six embryos transferred and they all implant, only 4 things can happen, all bad:
1. They all miscarry in the first trimester.
2. They survive the first trimester and the doctor does a “selective reduction” of three or four of them.
3. They survive into the second trimester and they all miscarry, perhaps after #2.
4. They survive to some nearly viable or barely viable age and are delivered by c-section, to spend some short or protracted period of time in intensive care, perhaps to go home, where the once-infertile couple become the caretakers of some surviving number of invalids.
What will never, ever happen is six healthy babies going home.
The only way around this is to limit the number of embryos implanted. IIRC, the Christian Medical Association has held this position for years.
Report comment as offensive
Theopholis,
Reread the article and Stubob’s comment.
This is precisely couples who are trying to “be fruitful and multiply”, but need medical assistance to do so - specifically IVF. They are proposing that it be done wisely, rather than implant every one of the multiple embryos created, since that strategy has been shown to have bad outcomes.
Report comment as offensive
I’m in total agreemt with StuBob on this one. As they used to say long ago in Family Court all across this great land of ours “What is in the best interest of the child?”
And as StuBob pointed out, quads or quints are nearly always preemies. That means they become residents of the local (or not so local!) NICU. And as if the blessed parents arent going to be cash-strapped enough from the start, they or their insurance will be burdened with that specialty care price tag.
If perhaps we could subsidize such specialty care instead of having medicare underwrite heart bypass procedures for elderly folks it might ease the cost, but multi zygote implants are still not the optimal choice.
Report comment as offensive
Washington Post reporter Liza Mundy’s book Conceivable Differences is a very interesting study of this situation:
http://tinyurl.com/5fyl89
Interestingly, I was asked to pray for a young woman at our church who went into IVF on Monday. They only had five viable sperm–it will take a miracle. Of course I prayed, because a miracle from God would speak volumes to the non-believing father. But, it sure felt odd when God pricked me heart several times that day, “it’s time to pray again.”
I’m just hoping for one miracle nine months from now.
Report comment as offensive
I have a friend who had triplets via IVF. That was all they had implanted b/c that was as many as they felt they could handle at once. We were discussing a mom that I’d heard recently did one of those worst case scenarios (complete with 6 implants, selective reduction and a resulting miscarriage where the babies were allowed to die w/o medical attention). She said that the way IVF has progressed in the past few years that it is medically irresponsible to implant so many embryos. The reason they used to do it was b/c they had such a high rate of failure. But now they can keep the embryos in the “test tube” a bit longer to grow, thus imitating that natural gap in time between fertilization and implantation. So the survival rate is much higher and you can implant fewer knowing they’ve got a decent shot at living.
That being said, I am leery of allowing laws to be made regarding this. How can it be misused or twisted beyond its original design? Will it turn into a China-like policy against having “too many” children for those conceived naturally? In this day and age I don’t think that’s so far out in left field.
And in response to the question of whether it’s *possible* to have sextuplets that all survive, it IS. Ever seen “John and Kate Plus 8″ on TLC? It follows the Gosselin family who have a set of twins and a set of sextuplets.
Report comment as offensive
Interesting conflict here. If one believes that the commandment is to be fruitful and multiply, period, then implanting as many embryos as possible is the way to do it.
However, if one is willing to modify that commandment to require doing so reasonably then birth control and even abortion come into the picture.
Report comment as offensive
If one believes that the commandment is to be fruitful and multiply, period, then implanting as many embryos as possible is the way to do it.
*******I disagree with your interpretation.
You are adding the “as many as possible at one time” idea to the passage. God didn’t say so.
As Stubob pointed out, the Christian Medical Association has always had the policy of no more than is reasonably safe.
Report comment as offensive
If one believes that the commandment is to be fruitful and multiply, period, then implanting as many embryos as possible is the way to do it.
Well, no. Transferring (you can’t “implant” them; they implant themselves) more and more embryos results in fewer live births. See my #2 above.
Report comment as offensive
I have a good idea: How about ending IVF until all the babies/children up for adoption are taken?
Report comment as offensive
Generally true #2, but not always, the Gosselins had healthy sextuplets a few years ago. They didn’t do IVF though. They had FSH. That said, I believe that almost all ART (Assisted Reproductive Technologies) are counter to God’s purpose and will. Almost all of them involve killing ‘extra’ embryos, and most involve unacceptably high risks to the babies.
If a couple is infertile, there are 2 better options thatn ART; adoption of orphans, and using the extra time and finances that childless couples have to minister to others in volunteer work. I’m not saying these are easier options. But they are in line with loving our neighbour
Report comment as offensive
I don’t know. I agree that it is problematic to destroy extra embryos. My understanding is that there are extra embryos because of the money that it costs to do the initial work. So, they make extras in case of failure so that the couple doesn’t have to pay again. THAT is problematic. I don’t think there should be extra embryos that get destroyed.
However, if we’re going to argue that we shouldn’t do IVF or other forms of treatment for infertility because it is “God’s will,” then I certainly hope those of you arguing for it are not: wearing glasses, wearing contacts, taking medicine, or taking supplements. In addition, I hope you’ve never had braces, never had a pace-maker (and wouldn’t take one if you needed it), never had (or never would use) a hearing aide, never had an operation, and aren’t accepting any sort of invasive medical help for any conditions.
After all…all such conditions are “God’s will”…right?
Report comment as offensive
TRS - 13
YOU WRITE: “However, if we’re going to argue that we shouldn’t do IVF or other forms of treatment for infertility because it is “God’s will,” then I certainly hope those of you arguing for it are not: wearing glasses, wearing contacts, taking medicine, or taking supplements. In addition, I hope you’ve never had braces, never had a pace-maker (and wouldn’t take one if you needed it), never had (or never would use) a hearing aide, never had an operation, and aren’t accepting any sort of invasive medical help for any conditions.”
TRS, there is a vast difference between trying to artificially take sperm and egg, and produce a child - VS. - medication and all the other things you mentioned above - those you cited are ways to help those who have problems, they don’t “invent life” they help one to see better, hear better, give one a better bite (orthodontics) - you can mention all of these wonderful things which we can take advantage of to help us see and hear better, but they DO NOT INVENT a child through artificial means.
Man certainly can take advantage of medicine, as Luke was a doctor, but there is nothing which gives man the right to play with the creation of life, or the destruction of life within the womb, that is GOD’s choice, HIS creation, HIS work, HE decides, not man.
Report comment as offensive
Both infertility and the need for glasses, etc. are results of the Fall, but glasses don’t pose the ethical issues that ART does.
Report comment as offensive
“they DO NOT INVENT a child through artificial means”
Neither does ART do that. It is still a coming together of egg and sperm, just in a petri dish instaed of a uterus. Once united, they go back to the uterus.
The “God’s Will” argument falls a little flat to my ears, because it is your interpretation of which medical procedures are His will and which are not. There are those who say that blood transfusionas are against His will. I don’t believe either you or they are particularly good arbiters of that.
Also, TRS at #13, I think it is more than just the cost. My understanding is that harvesting eggs for this procedure is a painstaking and uncomfortable procedure, so it is far more efficient to harvest several eggs at once. Also, since there can be a high failure rate for a fertilized egg to begin developing (just as with natural fertilization), you need to wait until you see development taking place before you transfer the embryo. Since timing the transfer is also sensitive, more than one egg is fertilized to try and ensure that there is at least one that is beginning to develop.
Report comment as offensive
Thomas - 16
Yes the Jehovah’s Witnesses do not believe in “blood transfusions” -
GOD brings about life, HE always has from the beginning of Adam and Eve. Handling eggs and sperm, no matter how much care is taken, whether they are united in petri dish means, that some eggs, and some sperm can be destroyed in the process - which is a glaring example of man playing GOD, taking liberties with life that aren’t his to take.
The problem with medicine today; some scientist and doctors would rather create life than use his skills to HEAL those who are ill. Healing isn’t creating a new human being in a petri dish its using ones skills and scientfic knowledge to help people live better, ie. eye, hearing loss, disease such as cancer, and heart, diabetes and a host of other illnesses.
Report comment as offensive
Theophilus: I recall the begining of humanity
Wow .. you are a lot older than I would have guessed!
Report comment as offensive
HAHAHAAHAAHAAA…………….ya got me, SteveG
Report comment as offensive
no matter how much care is taken, whether they are united in petri dish means, that some eggs, and some sperm can be destroyed in the process
*******Which happens in coitus all the time. Every “coupling” does not create a baby. God is just as capable of deciding not to let an egg and a sperm get together and make a child in the womb or in the petri dish. How many of those in the petri dish never make it to being born for no apparent reason?
I really think that Thomas has it right. You are making yourselves arbiters of what is and isn’t God’s will and what is and isn’t an accepted medical procedure.
After all, perhaps it is God’s will that someone die of a heart attack and the doctors are thwarting that by implanting a pace maker.
Report comment as offensive
TRS
A doctor who implants a ‘pace maker’ is not creating a NEW LIFE in a dish, he is using an implant to prolong life, there is a great difference between the two, in fact there is no comparison.
Report comment as offensive
I’m going to make some popcorn and get a coke.
Report comment as offensive
Victoria,
IMO, there is a great comparison.
Report comment as offensive