Bioethics refers to the ethics in the field of medical and biological research and its application. Some of the key ethical concerns in this field are stem cell research, use of animals for human transplantation, cloning and exposing pregnant women to new drugs. With advent of new assisted reproductive technologies, custody of frozen embryos in in-vitro fertilization (IVF) has also become an ethical concern. The paper deals with three such ethical concerns pertaining to custody of frozen embryos in the event of divorce, stem cell research and use of animals for human organ transplantation.
The case is about a couple who underwent IVF. Nine embryos were formed in total, out of which two were implanted and seven were frozen. The couple later went for divorce and the custody of their frozen embryos became a moot point during their divorce hearing in the court.
Custody of Frozen Embryos
The case does not mention if both John Smith and Mary Sue are claiming custody of the frozen embryos. It always happens in divorce cases that the husband does not want his ex-wife to bear his child. If that be the case, Mary Sue should be given the custody of the frozen embryos. The treatment of the case should be similar to a divorce case in which the wife is pregnant at the time of divorce, and whether to deliver a baby or have an abortion is the decision of the expecting mother alone. If both the parents claim custody of the embryos to bear more children, biologically both have equal right on the embryos. IVF is a difficult procedure and the couple would have undergone a lot of mental trauma during the procedure. Though not exactly an individual, embryos are well differentiated and unique. Hence, the case should be treated like a normal divorce, in which the custody of children is divided among parents. However, there should be a clause that the parents cannot dispose of, sell or use the embryo in any other inappropriate ways. It should be used in the best interest of the preborn child.
Consultation for Use of Surrogate
Once the custody of the embryos has been decided, the parent responsible has the right to take decision about implanting the embryos. If either of them decides to implant the embryo in a surrogate mother, he or she can do so. John Smith cannot have it implanted biologically and Mary Sue has already undergone many operative procedures. Moreover, they have the authority to make decisions that are in best interests of their children. So, both of them can decide to use a surrogate mother to bear their children if they are willing to take the responsibility. However, ethically it is right to consult the other biological parent and who has equal right to suggest an appropriate course of action.
Requirement of Consent for Use of Surrogate
Once the custody has been decided, the parent responsible can make his or her own decisions with respect to the preborn child. Bearing children from the frozen embryos and taking responsibility of it is in the best interest of the child. Hence, consent of the other biological parent is not required.
Ethical Approach Used
The rights approach to ethical concern has chiefly influenced my analysis of the case. This approach is guided by the natural rights of a human being. While one is free to decide his or her course of action in life, he or she has to respect the rights of the others as well. The duty towards the unborn child is the most important to me. Biologically, the frozen embryos have life in them. The decision taken should be in the best interest of the preborn children.
Human Embryonic Stem Cell (hESC) Research
Embryos are produced in fertility clinics through assisted reproductive techniques. There are a variety of ethical concerns with using these embryos for research purposes. First and the foremost ethical concern is the duty of a human being to respect and value life, in general, and human life, in particular. Second concern is related to the ethical dilemma and morality associated with a viable and a non-viable embryo. Moral sensitively is much lesser for a non-viable embryo. But, the discarded embryo from fertility clinics was viable or non-viable is the moot point of discussion. There are several cases where surplus embryos are left even after a frozen embryo transfer, which are given away for research. Rather than discarding those embryos for research purposes, it is morally right to donate them to a couple who needs them. Third concern is the potential of stem cell research in finding cure of many serious medical conditions and birth defects. It can help in alleviating human suffering by medical advancements.
Hence, I believe that this source of embryo does not fully address the concern of those who do not want the embryos to be destroyed. While the use of a viable embryo for research purposes is unethical, research on non-viable embryos should be permitted in a controlled manner. Ensuring an ethical process of discarding only the non-viable embryos is a grave concern. Unless this process is in place, use of embryos should not be allowed.
Ethical Approach Used
I have followed a deontological approach of ethics in analyzing this ethical dilemma. While the potential of stem cell research in easing human life is well established, viability and life in a human embryo cannot be ignored. Adopting a rightful process is more essential than the rightful outcome of a conduct. So, using viable human embryos is a wrongful conduct, even if the outcome from it is in the benefit of mankind. Non-viable discarded embryos can be used for research purposes, in a controlled manner.
Use of Animals for Human Organ Transplant
With advancements in medical science, scientists are attempting the possibility of using animals as a source for human organ transplantation. The potential benefit of this attempt is to ensure availability of transplantable organs; however it also poses a lot of ethical concerns on humans. First, this act is an interference with nature, the repercussion of which is yet to be established. This unnatural process may not be compatible with nature. Second, use of animal organs also impacts the recipient. The recipient suffers not only psychologically, but also from disease transmission from the animals. Informing patients about the procedure and its outcome is morally important as he or she has the right to make a rational choice for self. Third, such transplantations may also impact the mankind as a whole. It is always fraught with a risk of spread of a new and unexplored disease to other humans. Containing such epidemic incidences can be very difficult. The alteration in genetic makeup of the recipient can pass on to offspring and bear problems. Fourth, the harmful effects of the procedure on animals cannot be negated. The procedures can transmit diseases and can be fatal. These problems do bother me as it affects living beings and interferes with the nature.
Ethical Approach Used
I have used a combination of intuitional and deontological ethical approaches in this case. I have used some moral beliefs in this case, which have not been deducted inferentially given the lack of sufficient research. It is my moral belief that anything that anything so unnatural, like combining animals with human, may not be good for mankind. Deontological approach is used because I do not feel that the potential benefit of such transplants in human can justify the conduct of the medical procedure used.
