The ethics of In vitro fertilization

Robbie_James_Francis said:

For me, the only difference is the resources used for IVF that could be used elsewhere. ....

Click to expand...

these arguments in general annoy me. They typically try to say hey use this money elsewhere when there is much more waste in the goverment in other areas that dont do any good.

I would say, like many other issues that have to do with scientific advancements, it is not unethical in and of itself. It all depends on the situation.

I don't agree with unnamed, anonymous donors being used, because that can bring to many problems later on. Of these problems include medical issues that were not taken into consideration at the time of donation, and therefore, not screened; as well as the issue of the child and the father/mother not knowing who each other are, which has caused issues in a number of cases.

But I see no issue with allowing an otherwise infertile couple to have children. I think that ability is really a gift of God.

As the OP specifically brought up lose of embryos and potential harm to the mother due to IVF, I would like to point out that natural reproduction also can be tremendously harmful (most often moreso, due to the already high amount of medical attention for IVD compared to that of a couple reproducing naturally). As well as the high number of miscarriages that take place early in pregnancy (often before signs of pregnancy, appearing as a heavy menstraul cycle to most women [I am so sorry if that is too graphic, let me know and it will be edited!]).

So I see no reason to determine it unethical in itself.

DarkProphet said:

There are a lot of ethical pitfalls involved with IVF. There is the potential for harm to the mother, the considerations of the sperm and/or egg donors, and the destruction of numerous embryos in the process, let alone the whole idea of creating a life where one would not exist otherwise. Given all this is IVF ethical?

Click to expand...

The second one is not of a problem as long as there is a no strings attach donation (in other words, the mother cannot ask for child support).

The first and third are seen in normal reproduction.

Rebekka said:

And don't forget contributing to overpopulation.

Click to expand...

Not really. Breaking down population, over population comes mostly from second/third-world countries (or poverty areas of first world countries) where more children = more security. Many first world countries are not that big of a contributor to over-population (over-consumption is a different story), and I would think almost all IVF would be first-world.

Nathan45 said:

Why single out IVF? The same argument could be used against anyone guilty of natural reproduction.

Click to expand...

Depends... were they trying to have a kid, or were they having 'fun' and out popped one (9 months later)?

lawtonfogle said:

Depends... were they trying to have a kid, or were they having 'fun' and out popped one (9 months later)?

Click to expand...

Are you saying that if a couple is only 'having fun' they are not responsible for any children their union may produce? I disagree. Every single time a person willingly has sex, they are taking the risk of producing a child, regardless of their intent.

tigercub said:

Are you saying that if a couple is only 'having fun' they are not responsible for any children their union may produce? I disagree. Every single time a person willingly has sex, they are taking the risk of producing a child, regardless of their intent.

Click to expand...

An accident is an accident. You cannot say that you willing accept small risk in one situation and not in another. If you are morally responsible for the child, then you are morally responsible for any accident.

Parents should take care of any child they have, but even the most 'it is immoral to pro-create and not adopt' people should not feel a need to atone for it.

If you are pro life to be consistent you should be against IVF. Think of all those fertilized eggs/embryos...I mean babies, that are being destroyed once the parents decide they've implanted enough!!! In order to be consistent you must plant ALL of the embryos and hope to God they don't all take and you don't end up like Octomom.

DarkProphet said:

There are a lot of ethical pitfalls involved with IVF. There is the potential for harm to the mother,

Click to expand...

There is potential for harm in any medical proceedure.

the considerations of the sperm and/or egg donors,

Click to expand...

That is a separate issue from the ethics of IVF itself. Most IVF is not dependent on donors.

and the destruction of numerous embryos in the process

Click to expand...

,
IVF can be done without producing numerous excess embryos. IVF done unethically is not an argument that IVF is, itself, unethical.

let alone the whole idea of creating a life where one would not exist otherwise.

Click to expand...

same as sex.

Given all this is IVF ethical?

Click to expand...

Like most things in life, IVF can be done ethically or unethically.

hsmommyofmany said:

... (since they will only put 4 back in) ...

Click to expand...

In Australia they will generally put a maximum of two back in at a time, and are leaning towards only one, because of the high risks associated with multiple births.

Robbie_James_Francis said:

I don't think people who get IVF are necessarily making an ethically bad decision. But I do wonder, why not just adopt? There are kids out there that need homes, so why bring another child into the world when you could help ones that already exist?

In all honesty I'd say I don't think it's wrong to have IVF, but I do think it is better to adopt. I don't want to judge anyone who has had or wants to have IVF, though.

Click to expand...

Same reasons anybody else has their own children instead of adopting. The same reasons Hannah prayed and prayed on the steps of the house of the Lord until Eli thought she was drunk.

Robbie_James_Francis said:

True. That's pretty much what I'm trying to get at...there's nothing morally wrong with having kids, but with limited resources it would be better to give a loving home to orphans. Which is not to say everyone can do that--some people feel a need for biological children or have ethical objections to contraception so they can't..and if you can't do something it's impossible to say you should.

But with IVF there is the issue of the huge amounts of money spent. To think that even a fraction of that could build a well to stop people dying from dirty water really makes me wonder which is more worthwhile. We're talking several thousands of pounds, which is a matter of life or death for real people in the developing world.

Click to expand...

You could ask the same question of any other medical proceedure. For the money it costs any one proceedure in the West, say, you could save a large number of people from preventable disease in Africa.

It's a valid question, but it needs to be asked generally, not picking on one particular medical condition.

I don't like the idea of IVF. Never had. Why not just adopt?

But I don't understand the desire for children at all.

LoisGriffin said:

I don't like the idea of IVF. Never had. Why not just adopt?

Click to expand...

There is no such thing as 'just adopt. It's not like ordering a pizza. In most cases, adopting a child can be more expensive and time-consuming than IVF.

I wish people would actually do some research and find out what is involved in adopting a child before they make glib comments like 'Why no just adopt?'

DarkProphet said:

Both IVF and adoption involve a conscious choice to invest time and money into getting a child. The logistics shouldn't shouldn't be a factor in weighing it as an ethical decision.

Click to expand...

To clarify, I was answering LoisGriffin with my last post.

tigercub said:

I wish people would actually do some research and find out what is involved in adopting a child before they make glib comments like 'Why no just adopt?'

Click to expand...

On a sidenote, I wish people would actually do some research and find out what is involved in having and raising a child before they make themselves one
(no matter which method).
/of off topic sidenote

Dry Land Fish said:

There are no ethics. If a woman wants to use the procedure then she has that right. It's her ovaries and no one has any business telling them what to do with their ovaries.

Click to expand...

If it were shown that IVF babies were at much higher risk of certain disorders (say) -would that not raise ethical question? Just as it is reasonable to ask ethical questions relating to mothers who (say) continue to smoke or drink heavily in pregnancy.

As soon as you are in the business of creating new life with new rights then of course you are in the business of ethics.

ebia said:

As soon as you are in the business of creating new life with new rights then of course you are in the business of ethics.

Click to expand...

Except when you are god, of course.