There was an interesting article in the Seattle Times yesterday about the issue of embryo "adoption". The quotation marks are there because the language here is beginning to get tricky. For a many years the process of anonymously donating frozen embryos not needed after infertility treatment has been referred to as embryo donation. It happens rarely, but occasionally, in the ART (artificial reproductive technology) world. Embryo adoption seems to have been used by some to define another process where the biological "parents" of an embryo are matched with another couple, exchange information such as health histories and physical characteristics, and then "release" their rights to the embryo, a very similar process to that of adopting infants and children.
But in these days of abortion/stem cell politics and controversy, some folks are attempting to blur the lines further and make it all embryo "adoption", therefore supporting the idea that these masses of cells should have all the rights of a human being. It has been in the news a lot, lately, in part because of the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005, which was passed in the house but which President Bush vows to veto. Earlier this month he held a press conference with twenty-one "Snowflake Babies", encouraging "embryo adoption" as the alternative to donating frozen embryos for stem cell research and stating that "there is no such thing as a spare embryo".
Yesterday's article in the Seattle Times told the story of the McClures, a couple from Bellevue with three older children and no plans for more, who heard about embryo "adoption" and felt the need to "save" a life through this process. Though they felt uncomfortable working with a fertility clinic that was in the business of creating "spare" embryos, they followed the advice of a fellow church member who said "if you want to free a slave, sometimes you have to deal with the slave owner." Alrighty then. Comparing 6 or 8 celled embryos or even 5-day-old blastocysts not implanted in a uterus, to a thinking, feeling, breathing person experiencing slavery is difficult for me, personally, to wrap my mind around, though I do acknowledge people have very strong feelings about all this.
I was actually rather pleased to see the Times really did their research on this, though, and quoted many RE's (reproductive endocrinologists) in the area, including two of mine and the counselor from our clinic, about various aspects of the IVF process. They also made very clear, unlike a New York Times article a few weeks ago, the difference between transferring embryos into a womb, and the successful implantation of an embryo. The former is one part of the process, and is (relatively) easy and straightforward, the latter not so much (as I can personally vouch for).
It may seem the solution to the excess embryo issue is to not make so many in the first place, but as the technology stands today, you usually do need a lot! In our case, of 34 eggs retrieved we had 15 viable embryos and three separate transfers, yet none of them actually hung around long enough to implant. It is such a painful, invasive and expensive process to actually retrieve the eggs needed to make an embryo, the thought of having to do that 34 times (and likely, more) is downright ridiculous. Hopefully, science will catch up soon with the technology for freezing eggs (as well as diagnosing/treating implantation issues), so that so many "extra" embryos won't be as needed in the future. But, we are not there yet.
Some proponents of embryo "adoption" seem to think this is an easy, black and white decision, and for them, maybe it is. Statistics show, though, there are over 400,000 frozen embryos stored in US fertility clinics each year. President Bush has stated that "every embryo is unique and genetically complete, like every other human being", but what about the 60-80% or so of all naturally conceived embryos that do not implant and are flushed out of a woman's system, unnoticed? Do we now need to consider those to be human life, lost, and to work to save each of them, as well?
I know most people who go through this have very personal reasons for what they choose, and I was thankful (and feel strongly that it was my right) to be given a choice in the matter. The options we had to consider before our IVF cycle (though we could always change our minds, later), were to destroy any extra embryos, donate them to research, or donate them to another person (this would all happen, of course, some time in the future if there were any left after we were done with all this family-building business). Destroying them felt silly and we ruled that out right away. The other two options were very difficult, but we decided on research in the end. We support stem cell research, because of its life-saving possibilities, and the thought of a child with our genes being raised in another family (of which we did not not know) just didn't feel right for us.
It would make me even more uncomfortable if I knew our embryos might not in fact go to an infertile person/couple who desperately want it and welcome it as a precious gift, but to someone who is trying to "save" or "liberate" it from the evil people (us and the fertility clinic) who created it. I would love to hear what adoption specialists have to say about this, because from everything I have heard and read so far, it is so important to a child's well-being that his/her biological roots (and medical history) be known, acknowledged and valued, not degraded or dismissed by the adoptive family. And how important it is that the adopted child be truly wanted by the adoptive family for the unique individual that he/she is, not "saved" or "rescued" and therefore owing the adoptive family for the "sacrifice" or "good deed" they have done.
I know this issue is a touchy one, almost more than any other, and one that will not be "solved" easily, or quickly, if at all. I only hope that whatever happens, people really do some research and think carefully before making decisions on all of this. Also, I hope that those who "adopt" or receive frozen embryos do it for the right reasons, and vow to do everything they can to help their children feel confident and proud of both their biological and adoptive identities, which may be difficult due to the current anonymous systems (now see, here's my open adoption bias coming through, but I'll save that for another blog post...).
21 Jun · Tue 2005
Embryo Madness
There was an interesting article in the Seattle Times yesterday about the issue of embryo "adoption". The quotation marks are there because the language here is beginning to get tricky. For a many years the process of anonymously donating frozen embryos not needed after infertility treatment has been referred to as embryo donation. It happens rarely, but occasionally, in the ART (artificial reproductive technology) world. Embryo adoption seems to have been used by some to define another process where the biological "parents" of an embryo are matched with another couple, exchange information such as health histories and physical characteristics, and then "release" their rights to the embryo, a very similar process to that of adopting infants and children.
But in these days of abortion/stem cell politics and controversy, some folks are attempting to blur the lines further and make it all embryo "adoption", therefore supporting the idea that these masses of cells should have all the rights of a human being. It has been in the news a lot, lately, in part because of the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005, which was passed in the house but which President Bush vows to veto. Earlier this month he held a press conference with twenty-one "Snowflake Babies", encouraging "embryo adoption" as the alternative to donating frozen embryos for stem cell research and stating that "there is no such thing as a spare embryo".
Yesterday's article in the Seattle Times told the story of the McClures, a couple from Bellevue with three older children and no plans for more, who heard about embryo "adoption" and felt the need to "save" a life through this process. Though they felt uncomfortable working with a fertility clinic that was in the business of creating "spare" embryos, they followed the advice of a fellow church member who said "if you want to free a slave, sometimes you have to deal with the slave owner." Alrighty then. Comparing 6 or 8 celled embryos or even 5-day-old blastocysts not implanted in a uterus, to a thinking, feeling, breathing person experiencing slavery is difficult for me, personally, to wrap my mind around, though I do acknowledge people have very strong feelings about all this.
I was actually rather pleased to see the Times really did their research on this, though, and quoted many RE's (reproductive endocrinologists) in the area, including two of mine and the counselor from our clinic, about various aspects of the IVF process. They also made very clear, unlike a New York Times article a few weeks ago, the difference between transferring embryos into a womb, and the successful implantation of an embryo. The former is one part of the process, and is (relatively) easy and straightforward, the latter not so much (as I can personally vouch for).
It may seem the solution to the excess embryo issue is to not make so many in the first place, but as the technology stands today, you usually do need a lot! In our case, of 34 eggs retrieved we had 15 viable embryos and three separate transfers, yet none of them actually hung around long enough to implant. It is such a painful, invasive and expensive process to actually retrieve the eggs needed to make an embryo, the thought of having to do that 34 times (and likely, more) is downright ridiculous. Hopefully, science will catch up soon with the technology for freezing eggs (as well as diagnosing/treating implantation issues), so that so many "extra" embryos won't be as needed in the future. But, we are not there yet.
Some proponents of embryo "adoption" seem to think this is an easy, black and white decision, and for them, maybe it is. Statistics show, though, there are over 400,000 frozen embryos stored in US fertility clinics each year. President Bush has stated that "every embryo is unique and genetically complete, like every other human being", but what about the 60-80% or so of all naturally conceived embryos that do not implant and are flushed out of a woman's system, unnoticed? Do we now need to consider those to be human life, lost, and to work to save each of them, as well?
I know most people who go through this have very personal reasons for what they choose, and I was thankful (and feel strongly that it was my right) to be given a choice in the matter. The options we had to consider before our IVF cycle (though we could always change our minds, later), were to destroy any extra embryos, donate them to research, or donate them to another person (this would all happen, of course, some time in the future if there were any left after we were done with all this family-building business). Destroying them felt silly and we ruled that out right away. The other two options were very difficult, but we decided on research in the end. We support stem cell research, because of its life-saving possibilities, and the thought of a child with our genes being raised in another family (of which we did not not know) just didn't feel right for us.
It would make me even more uncomfortable if I knew our embryos might not in fact go to an infertile person/couple who desperately want it and welcome it as a precious gift, but to someone who is trying to "save" or "liberate" it from the evil people (us and the fertility clinic) who created it. I would love to hear what adoption specialists have to say about this, because from everything I have heard and read so far, it is so important to a child's well-being that his/her biological roots (and medical history) be known, acknowledged and valued, not degraded or dismissed by the adoptive family. And how important it is that the adopted child be truly wanted by the adoptive family for the unique individual that he/she is, not "saved" or "rescued" and therefore owing the adoptive family for the "sacrifice" or "good deed" they have done.
I know this issue is a touchy one, almost more than any other, and one that will not be "solved" easily, or quickly, if at all. I only hope that whatever happens, people really do some research and think carefully before making decisions on all of this. Also, I hope that those who "adopt" or receive frozen embryos do it for the right reasons, and vow to do everything they can to help their children feel confident and proud of both their biological and adoptive identities, which may be difficult due to the current anonymous systems (now see, here's my open adoption bias coming through, but I'll save that for another blog post...).
There was an interesting article in the Seattle Times yesterday about the issue of embryo "adoption". The quotation marks are there because the language here is beginning to get tricky. For a many years the process of anonymously donating frozen embryos not needed after infertility treatment has been referred to as embryo donation. It happens rarely, but occasionally, in the ART (artificial reproductive technology) world. Embryo adoption seems to have been used by some to define another process where the biological "parents" of an embryo are matched with another couple, exchange information such as health histories and physical characteristics, and then "release" their rights to the embryo, a very similar process to that of adopting infants and children.
But in these days of abortion/stem cell politics and controversy, some folks are attempting to blur the lines further and make it all embryo "adoption", therefore supporting the idea that these masses of cells should have all the rights of a human being. It has been in the news a lot, lately, in part because of the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005, which was passed in the house but which President Bush vows to veto. Earlier this month he held a press conference with twenty-one "Snowflake Babies", encouraging "embryo adoption" as the alternative to donating frozen embryos for stem cell research and stating that "there is no such thing as a spare embryo".
Yesterday's article in the Seattle Times told the story of the McClures, a couple from Bellevue with three older children and no plans for more, who heard about embryo "adoption" and felt the need to "save" a life through this process. Though they felt uncomfortable working with a fertility clinic that was in the business of creating "spare" embryos, they followed the advice of a fellow church member who said "if you want to free a slave, sometimes you have to deal with the slave owner." Alrighty then. Comparing 6 or 8 celled embryos or even 5-day-old blastocysts not implanted in a uterus, to a thinking, feeling, breathing person experiencing slavery is difficult for me, personally, to wrap my mind around, though I do acknowledge people have very strong feelings about all this.
I was actually rather pleased to see the Times really did their research on this, though, and quoted many RE's (reproductive endocrinologists) in the area, including two of mine and the counselor from our clinic, about various aspects of the IVF process. They also made very clear, unlike a New York Times article a few weeks ago, the difference between transferring embryos into a womb, and the successful implantation of an embryo. The former is one part of the process, and is (relatively) easy and straightforward, the latter not so much (as I can personally vouch for).
It may seem the solution to the excess embryo issue is to not make so many in the first place, but as the technology stands today, you usually do need a lot! In our case, of 34 eggs retrieved we had 15 viable embryos and three separate transfers, yet none of them actually hung around long enough to implant. It is such a painful, invasive and expensive process to actually retrieve the eggs needed to make an embryo, the thought of having to do that 34 times (and likely, more) is downright ridiculous. Hopefully, science will catch up soon with the technology for freezing eggs (as well as diagnosing/treating implantation issues), so that so many "extra" embryos won't be as needed in the future. But, we are not there yet.
Some proponents of embryo "adoption" seem to think this is an easy, black and white decision, and for them, maybe it is. Statistics show, though, there are over 400,000 frozen embryos stored in US fertility clinics each year. President Bush has stated that "every embryo is unique and genetically complete, like every other human being", but what about the 60-80% or so of all naturally conceived embryos that do not implant and are flushed out of a woman's system, unnoticed? Do we now need to consider those to be human life, lost, and to work to save each of them, as well?
I know most people who go through this have very personal reasons for what they choose, and I was thankful (and feel strongly that it was my right) to be given a choice in the matter. The options we had to consider before our IVF cycle (though we could always change our minds, later), were to destroy any extra embryos, donate them to research, or donate them to another person (this would all happen, of course, some time in the future if there were any left after we were done with all this family-building business). Destroying them felt silly and we ruled that out right away. The other two options were very difficult, but we decided on research in the end. We support stem cell research, because of its life-saving possibilities, and the thought of a child with our genes being raised in another family (of which we did not not know) just didn't feel right for us.
It would make me even more uncomfortable if I knew our embryos might not in fact go to an infertile person/couple who desperately want it and welcome it as a precious gift, but to someone who is trying to "save" or "liberate" it from the evil people (us and the fertility clinic) who created it. I would love to hear what adoption specialists have to say about this, because from everything I have heard and read so far, it is so important to a child's well-being that his/her biological roots (and medical history) be known, acknowledged and valued, not degraded or dismissed by the adoptive family. And how important it is that the adopted child be truly wanted by the adoptive family for the unique individual that he/she is, not "saved" or "rescued" and therefore owing the adoptive family for the "sacrifice" or "good deed" they have done.
I know this issue is a touchy one, almost more than any other, and one that will not be "solved" easily, or quickly, if at all. I only hope that whatever happens, people really do some research and think carefully before making decisions on all of this. Also, I hope that those who "adopt" or receive frozen embryos do it for the right reasons, and vow to do everything they can to help their children feel confident and proud of both their biological and adoptive identities, which may be difficult due to the current anonymous systems (now see, here's my open adoption bias coming through, but I'll save that for another blog post...).
Comments:
Post a Comment:
Comments are closed for this entry.
