 |
 |
Embryos In Limbo Deciding fate of unused embryos stirs controversy By ELLA JOHNSON and PHILIP ELLIOTT Courier & Press staff writers 464-7420 or [log in to unmask] 461-0783 or [log in to unmask] March 7, 2004 It has been more than 25 years since the first baby was born through in vitro fertilization. On July 25, Louise Brown of England - the world's first "test-tube baby" - will celebrate her 26th birthday, and scientists will continue their work in a field that has grown by leaps and bounds since 1978. In the last quarter-century, hundreds of thousands of children have been produced through in vitro fertilization, with the success rate for the procedure climbing. But the improvements have spun off medical, ethical and legal questions about what should happen to the unused, frozen embryos - fertilized eggs, the very early stage of human life. Fertility specialists in Evansville routinely discuss these questions with their patients and have them sign a contract outlining the patients' ownership rights prior to starting the procedure. But that has not prevented fertility clinics across the country from being left with thousands of frozen embryos that apparently have been forgotten by the genetic parents. The Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology estimates more than 16,000 human embryos are in storage in the United States. However, Snowflake Embryo Adoptions, a nonprofit agency operated by Nightlife Christian Adoptions, places the number closer to 400,000 - many of which are unclaimed. "We have a number go unclaimed where we cannot find the people, we have no forwarding address or phone number," said Dr. William Gentry of Advanced Fertility Group, who estimates there are 1,000 unclaimed embryos in storage at the group's offices in Evansville and Indianapolis. He described the situation as "embryos in limbo." "We would sure like to find them a home," Gentry said. "We have lots of people who want them, but most people who own them don't want to give them up." Dr. Leo Bonaventura, a fertility specialist with Midwest Reproductive Medicine, estimates his practice has 2,000 embryos in storage. Most of the unused embryos are from couples who started in vitro fertilization several years ago when the success rate was lower - 20 percent or less - and the procedure was more likely to be repeated. Kevin Valadares, an assistant professor of Health Services Administration at the University of Southern Indiana with a doctorate in health-care ethics, said as the number of unclaimed human embryos continues to grow, more questions will be asked. "Science and medicine have advanced so fast in a wonderful way. They can provide children to couples," Valadares said. "But our legal system hasn't even come close to catching up. It's just natural we are going to have this issue come up." Deciding the fate of the embryos is a highly emotional and controversial issue. Valadares said the debate generally is divided into two main camps of thought - use them or destroy them. Options for using the embryos include implanting them in the biological mother, giving them to an infertile couple through an embryo adoption program, or donating them for embryonic stem cell research. However, "there is no concrete answer right now," Valadares said. Religious groups have decried using embryos for medical research, arguing they are living people and should not be subject to experimentation. "You're not working with tissue, you're working with people," said the Rev. Tom Wenig, pastor of Evansville's Lutheran Church of Our Redeemer. He said the origin of the cells is suspect: "(The Bible) probably says you shouldn't have done that in the first place," he said. But, as thousands of petri dishes can illustrate, the technology is firmly established even if the religious interpretations are not. The Rev. Joseph Ziliak of St. John Catholic Church said research with stem cells is not the problem; rather the source of those stem cells is at issue - stem cells can be gathered from embryos, as well as from fetal tissue obtained from terminated pregnancies. "In general, the church has not been against scientific advancements in promoting human life," he said. "The only problem that I'm aware of is when they take stem cells from aborted fetuses." If there were another way, then the situation might change. "Fetuses that would come from a prebirth situation without being an abortive situation should fit the criteria of material that would be available for scientific use," Ziliak said. Dianne Oliver, a University of Evansville professor who teaches courses on Christian ethics, said part of the ambiguity is the result of diversity within churches. "The variety that exists is huge," Oliver said. "If you take the official Catholic stance, it recognizes the embryo itself has the moral status of a person. In some sense, it is treated as a moral person." Yet on a parish level, priests have to confront the realities of these embryos and their potential benefits. Ziliak said he has celebrated services for these cell clusters, akin to a funeral. "They could be buried at any time," Ziliak said. "Unless there is a good reason to maintain those, they should be disposed of with dignity. I would like to see them buried with a graveside service with prayer." Other religious leaders are concerned about what could result from research on the leftover embryos. The Rev. Vera Blackman of Evansville's Temple of Praise said the potential research might undermine God's creations. "I don't think we should be trying to recreate something, because you don't really know whether you're creating good or evil," she said. "That's the worst part of it. You don't really know what you're creating." Oliver said much of the debate hinges on how policymakers, would-be parents and the clergy define life. "How we understand the nature of human life is the core of the question," she said. "The question of how we treat all these things we create is only going to get more complicated than less complicated." When religions finally adopt a firm statement on these embryos and their medical application, a different lens will color the discussions, she said. "I think we'll continue to see in the stem cell debate the question: Who's going to end up benefiting from this research," Oliver said. So far, the research has been exceptionally costly, accessible only to the relatively wealthy, Oliver said. "The people who want to do this are not pure researchers. They want to make money on some level," Oliver said. The Bush administration has allocated $900,000 to promote embryo adoptions as an alternative to destroying what many people feel are "preborn children." "If a couple decides they want to donate them, we will do that for them," Bonaventura said. "We don't charge them for the embryo." But he said embryo adoption "is not something most people want to do." Gentry said embryo adoptions are more complicated than initially perceived. "A lot of women do not want to give up their embryos to another couple ... to allow them to have their genetic child," Gentry said. "They feel funny about that. Most of the time they'd rather discard them." Advanced Fertility Group and Midwest Reproductive Medicine charge a minimal fee for storing embryos at the clinics after a set period of time. Gentry said the monthly fee often prompts the genetic owners to make a decision about the future of the embryos. "If the couple want to discard them, it's their right to do so," Gentry said. Once ownership is transferred to the clinic, a solution is added to the petri dish containing the embryo to kill the cells, Gentry said. Bonaventura said Midwest does discard embryos, and it is up to the owners to decide what to do. "If they don't want to use them, they can come in and identify themselves, sign the appropriate forms and it's up to them," he said. SOURCE: Henderson Gleaner, KY http://www.myinky.com/ecp/news/article/0,1626,ECP_734_2710755,00.html * * * ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask] In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn