Why artificial insemination is wrong




















About the Center Staff. Cook Even casual readers of newspapers and viewers of television news programs have been exposed to the issues raised by the use of new technologies to affect and control human reproduction. Printer-Friendly Page. Return to Web format. Issues in Ethics - V. The views expressed on this site are the author's. The Markkula Center for Applied Ethics does not advocate particular positions but seeks to encourage dialogue on the ethical dimensions of current issues.

The Center welcomes comments and alternative points of view. Guest Editorial: Reproductive Technologies and the Vatican. Of Cures and Creatures Great and Small. One ethical and another descriptive principle in order to see what is going on here. The key ethical principle here is a principle of respect for persons. In other words, it is wrong to treat a person as if a person were a thing.

It is wrong to use a person the way you use a product, just for your own ends with no concern for the actual good of that other person.

This principle is articulated most famously in the work of Immanuel Kant, but it is widely shared, part of the broad, natural law tradition.

The next principle that we need to keep in mind is meant to be a kind of descriptive principle, just about the way human beings act, a principle of human action.

That is, that whatever we act, we always act to achieve some good or some end that we perceive to be an aspect of our fulfilment. Sometimes we can be wrong, but we are always seeking something that is good—and that is good in some way for ourselves, though the good of others may be included in that. We avoid treating others as means to our own ends when the good that we pursue is one in which the others involved also share.

When we are pursuing a common good. For example, you can see the difference between teaching and manipulating on these grounds. If I am teaching, then I am pursuing something which I think is good for me, the endeavor of knowledge, pursuit of knowledge, and sharing of knowledge, which is good for the one sharing it but also good if what I am teaching is true for the one listening to it, for the one receiving it.

So there is a common good in which all of us here are engaged in pursuing and that is the common good of knowledge. That is a greater understanding of these important issues that we face in our society today. We are participating in that good in slightly different ways. For me, here it is trying to explain some things and you trying to listen and perhaps hopefully learn something from what I am saying. That would be manipulation, and I would be pursuing my own good using you as a mere means to my own ends, ends in which you are not included.

And that would be wrong. I think that it is helpful to contrast natural procreation with in vitro fertilization to see how this happens. The principle of human action, as I said, tells us that everything we do is always related to some good or some end that we perceived to be an aspect of our fulfillment.

In natural procreation, what is the good or the end that the spouses are pursuing in marital, sexual intercourse? Well, the good that husband and wife directly pursue is the action and expression of their marital union. So the good that spouses are pursuing in marital, sexual intercourse is the common good of actualizing and expressing their marital union. I think that if they did, the other spouse would feel used.

I really wish I would have done something else that night. Am I just a vehicle for having children? It is just a vehicle for having children. So in marital intercourse, the point is the marital union itself, even though children may be greatly desired as the fruit of that union.

How, then, does procreation fit in here? Procreation supervenes on sexual intercourse—but even when husband and wife hope that they will conceive, it is not the immediate object of their intercourse or the reason for its choice worthiness, since biology tells us that it involves factors outside our direct control.

After intercourse happens, then a whole bunch of other factors have to be in play. It has to be the exact right time of the month after ovulation has occurred, a very narrow window in which a woman is fertile. And even then, intercourse may not occur because it is quite difficult. The sperm have to go through a lot of obstacles to be able to actually fertilize the egg. So you can hope for procreation to occur as a result of intercourse, but you can never make it happen.

You can only do something else which you have good reason to do in order to actualize and express your marital love and then hope that this will supervene on it as a further gift and completion of that union. In ideal circumstances, the natural procreation of a child occurs as a gift that supervenes on the act by which the spouses actualize and express their complete and mutual self-giving to one another, a complete and mutual self-giving which also implicitly involves an openness to welcoming unconditionally whatever children that union may produce.

Now contrast that kind of attitude and approach to having children with procreation through in vitro fertilization. If none of the eggs are successfully fertilized in vitro, in fact, their actions will have failed to achieve their goal. Why does this matter? Again, recall the principle that we always act for some good end related to our fulfilment.

In marital sexual intercourse, the good end for which the spouses act is the common good that they share of their marriage in which they both participate. Because they are acting for a common good in which they both participate, they are not using each other as means to their own ends, which would be a failure to respect each other as persons. But in IVF, the spouses want a child; they want a child for their own fulfilment, the fulfilment of their marriage, and perhaps also the good of the larger community—but the fulfilments that are sought there in the creation of a child are ones in which the child himself or herself actually does not participate.

In other words, in creating a child through IVF, the spouses are creating a child as a means to their own ends, which a child does not share. And there is therefore no common good in which the child also participates. The child comes into existence. To exist is a prerequisite for being benefitted or being harmed. Technically speaking, to be brought into existence is neither a harm nor a benefit. Before you can be harmed or benefitted you have to already exist. It has to be for the benefit of people who already exist, namely, the spouses or the larger community.

In this sense, the attitude toward the future child that is implicit in IVF is the attitude that is proper to things, to products that we make for our own use and benefit rather than the attitude that is proper to persons who should always be treated as ends in themselves and never as a mere means to our own ends.

This attitude toward the child as a product—which I believe is inherent in IVF, even when done in the best circumstances—can be seen most clearly in the practices I have already described. Novel sperm selection methods based on sperm surface charge or nonapoptotic sperm selection show promising results. However, they have not yet established themselves in routine practice, and their purpose for AIH is unknown; more evidence is needed.

As a consequence of these improved sperm selection techniques, the use of artificial insemination became very popular as a first line treatment procedure in case of unexplained and mild male factor infertility. At this moment AIH is probably one of the most applied assisted reproductive techniques worldwide.

Nevertheless, there is still an on-going debate whether or not AIH is an effective treatment option for various indications. Extended expectant management was recommended although the evidence-based data supporting this recommendation were not convincing at all.

Recent studies, including a large prospective randomized multicentre study, have shown that AIH remains a useful and cost-effective first-line treatment in case of mild male infertility and unexplained infertility with an unfavourable prognosis as compared to the more aggressive techniques such as IVF and ICSI Van Rumste et al.

The moral and social implications of artificial insemination were debated in both the medical and popular press in the United States since , in Europe the debate started in the s. The Catholic Church objected to all forms of artificial insemination, saying that it promoted the vice of onanism and ignored the religious importance of coitus.

The main criticism was that artificial insemination with donor semen was a form of adultery promoting the vice of masturbation. Other critics were concerned that AID could encourage eugenic government policies. Nevertheless, the demand for donor sperm increased tremendously. After the first successful pregnancy from frozen sperm, reported in , the development of a thriving sperm-bank industry starting in the s and the commercialization of AID became unavoidable. Because of the possible transmission of sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV, when using fresh sperm screening for infections of donors became mandatory.

The use of fresh donor semen samples almost disappeared. Another concern is the possibility to donate semen many times. Sociocultural concerns with biological paternity and the maintenance of the heterosexual, married couple as the basis of the family remain important in many countries. A lot of countries all over the world have not approved the use of AI with donor semen for single women and lesbian couples yet. Another point of debate is whether the donor has to be anonymous or non-anonymous, and when to inform and what to tell AID children about their biological parentage, if non-anonymous donors are used.

Whether or not to pay the donors and sexing of sperm by DNA quantification using flow cytometry instrumentation became a point of discussion.

The historical story of artificial insemination is a successful one; the worldwide acceptance of artificial insemination in animals provided the impetus for the innovation and development of many technologies which we are nowadays familiar with such as gamete cryopreservation, ovarian stimulation and cycle regulation, embryo freezing and cloning.

Many of the principles nowadays used in human artificial insemination are adapted from domestic animal studies, especially from cattle. The increasing demand of lesbians and single women for AI with donor semen is another challenge in many countries worldwide. Many debates, socio-cultural and ethical, are to be expected in the near future. I gratefully acknowledge Jeannick Gelissen for her technical support in preparing this manuscript. National Center for Biotechnology Information , U.

Facts Views Vis Obgyn. Ombelet 1, 2 and J. Van Robays 3. Find articles by W. Find articles by J. Van Robays. Author information Copyright and License information Disclaimer. Correspondence at: eb. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. This article has been cited by other articles in PMC. Abstract Artificial insemination with homologous AIH or donor semen AID is nowadays a very popular treatment procedure used for many subfertile women worldwide.

Keywords: Artificial insemination, assisted reproduction, history, human, intrauterine insemination, semen. Introduction The rationale behind artificial insemination is increasing the gamete density at the site of fertilization. Milestones in the history of artificial insemination Unofficial history claims that the first attempts to artificially inseminate a woman, were done by Henry IV , King of Castile , nicknamed the Impotent.

Open in a separate window. Donum Vitae teaches that if a given medical intervention helps or assists the marriage act to achieve pregnancy, it may be considered moral; if the intervention replaces the marriage act in order to engender life, it is not moral.

One reproductive technology which the Church has clearly and unequivocally judged to be immoral is in vitro fertilization or IVF. Unfortunately, most Catholics are not aware of the Church's teaching, do not know that IVF is immoral, and some have used it in attempting to have children.

If a couple is unaware that the procedure is immoral, they are not subjectively guilty of sin. Children conceived through this procedure are children of God and are loved by their parents, as they should be. Like all children, regardless of the circumstances of their conception and birth, they should be loved, cherished and cared for.

The immorality of conceiving children through IVF can be difficult to understand and accept because the man and woman involved are usually married and trying to overcome a "medical" problem infertility in their marriage. Yet the procedure does violence to human dignity and to the marriage act and should be avoided. But why, exactly, is IVF immoral? In vitro fertilization brings about new life in a petri dish. Children engendered through IVF are sometimes known as "test tube babies.

Semen is collected from the man, usually through masturbation. The egg and sperm are ultimately joined in a glass dish, where conception takes place and the new life is allowed to develop for several days. In the simplest case, embryos are then transferred to the mother's womb in the hope that one will survive to term. Obviously, IVF eliminates the marriage act as the means of achieving pregnancy, instead of helping it achieve this natural end. The new life is not engendered through an act of love between husband and wife, but by a laboratory procedure performed by doctors or technicians.

Husband and wife are merely sources for the "raw materials" of egg and sperm, which are later manipulated by a technician to cause the sperm to fertilize the egg.

Not infrequently, "donor" eggs or sperm are used. This means that the genetic father or mother of the child could well be someone from outside the marriage. This can create a confusing situation for the child later, when he or she learns that one parent raising him or her is not actually the biological parent. In fact, the identity of the "donor," whether of egg or sperm, may never be known, depriving the child of an awareness of his or her own lineage.

This can mean a lack of knowledge of health problems or dispositions toward health problems which could be inherited. It could lead to half brothers and sisters marrying one another, because neither knew that the sperm which engendered their lives came from the same "donor. But even if the egg and sperm come from husband and wife, serious moral problems arise.

Invariably several embryos are brought into existence; only those which show the greatest promise of growing to term are implanted in the womb.

The others are simply discarded or used for experiments. This is a terrible offense against human life. While a little baby may ultimately be born because of this procedure, other lives are usually snuffed out in the process. In a desire to hold down costs and enhance the odds of success, doctors sometimes implant five or more embryos in the mother's womb.

This may result in more babies than a couple wants.



0コメント

  • 1000 / 1000