This week’s readings concern the reactions of the Catholic Church and the French Government to modern reproductive technologies, such as IVF. Interestingly, both institutions are not only critical of reproductive technologies but also presuppose an a priori natural law. While the Catholic Church’s and the French Government’s reasoning is somewhat different, the fact that they both presuppose natural laws and are critical of modern reproductive technologies reflects that advancements in technology—especially in reproductive technologies—brings up anxieties about nature and natural law.
The central anxiety reproductive technologies evoke from the Catholic Church, as shown in Donum Vitae, is that the technologies may go against human nature. The Church believes that “each human person…is constituted not only by his spirit but by his body as well” (Donum Vitae, 144). Since the body and soul are inseparable from the human being, the Church reasons that any physical intervention (such as a medical procedure) will always affect the soul. As such, the Church instructs that any medical intervention “must be given a moral evaluation in reference to the dignity of the human person, who is called to realized his vocation from God to the gift of love and the gift of life” (Donum Vitae, 145). Because of this logic, the core principle of the Church is that medical technology must respect the dignity of the human being.
Regarding reproductive technologies, the authors of Donum Vitae outline three basic principles that are relevant to determining the morality of reproductive technologies. The first principle is that embryos and fetuses are to be respected as human beings. This principle reflects Church doctrine that life begins at conception. The second principle is that human life cannot be purposely destroyed or viewed as an end. This principle reflects a Kantian attitude towards humanity and is rooted in the teaching that human life is extraordinary due to its creation by God, in God’s image. The third principle is that procreation ought to happen only through marriage. This principle is derived from Church doctrine that a child has the right to be born into a marriage. The logic the authors use to defend this principle is that married parents bring stability and growth for the child. Using these three principles, the authors evaluate some issues stemming from modern advances in reproductive technologies
The authors spend a considerable amount of space evaluating the morality of in-vitro-fertilization (IVF). In particular, they question the morality of heterologous IVF and homologous IVF. The authors determine that heterologous IVF, defined as fertilization outside of marriage, goes against Church doctrine because it “violates the rights of the child; it deprives him of his filial relationship with his parental origins and can hinder the maturing of his personal identity” (Donum Vitae, 159). In other words, heterologous IVF is prohibited because it denies the child married parents. Unlike their judgment on heterologous IVF, the authors seem to have difficulties judging homologous IVF, defined as fertilization within marriage. Ultimately, they rule against it because “such fertilization is neither in fact achieved nor positively willed as the expression and fruit of a specific act of the conjugal union…the generation of the human person is objectively deprived of its proper perfection: namely, that of being the result and fruit of a conjugal act” (Donum Vitae, 165). In other words, homologous IVF is prohibited because the child was not conceived through “conjugal” relations.
From my perspective, the authors of Donum Vitae fail to provide adequate reasons for why IVF (any form) is prohibited. I can understand the logic of how they reached their decision, but I do not view their reasons as sufficient to declare IVF prohibited. The prohibition and reasons appear to be a reaction against change. While it remains debatable if the authors of Donum Vitae prohibit IVF due to a fear that it will change normalcy, it is undebatable that the actions of the 1994 French National Assembly were made out of fear that IVF will disrupt the status quo.
Nan Ball, in the 2000 article “The Reemergence of Enlightenment Ideas in the 1994 French Bioethics Debates,” does an excellent job at investigating the conditions present in France’s decision to limit IVF treatment exclusively to heterosexual couples of childbearing age. Ball argues that France’s decision reflected Enlightenment thought on nature and was made in order to maintain what was then viewed as normal. According to Ball, the French legislature viewed “artificial insemination of homosexual or post-menopausal woman…as ‘unnatural’ because equivalent modes of procreation were not to be found in nature” (Ball, 571). Ball explains that the “polemical groundwork” for France’s decision comes from the Enlightenment.
Ball explains that Enlightenment thinkers revitalized the importance of the family, which were later adapted to the French bioethics debate. According to Ball, the Enlightenment caused the family to transform into “a moral and spiritual function, it formed bodies and souls” (Ball, 560). Jean-Jacques Rousseau took the idea of the family a step further by linking “the importance of the family to the well-being of society” (Ball, 561). Rousseau, in other words, believed that the family was connected to society and a happy family would result in a happy society. Unsurprisingly, two-hundred years later, one of the primary reasons why the French legislators restricted IVF is that they “wanted to slow down the possible social changes signaled by unrestricted use of biomedical technology” (Ball 571). In other words, the French legislators restricted IVF because they believed that by allowing people deemed unnatural to have children—such as homosexuals or post-menopausal women—society would collapse.
Nan’s article does a great job of showing the motives of the French legislators and explaining that it was out of fear. I am stunned that a “western” European country had such a rigid view of normality not too long ago. The 1994 French bioethics debate, as well as the Donum Vitae, illuminate the motives behind why certain medical practices, which are inherently benevolent, are banned. I find it interesting and perplexing that neither case discussed the reasons why procedures like IVF were invented. I am not surprised, however, that a reason against reproductive technologies found in both cases is an unwillingness to accept that norms may change.
Works Cited:
Ball, Nan. “The Reemergence of Enlightenment Ideas in the 1994 French Bioethics Debates.” Duke Law Journal, vol. 50, no. 2, Nov. 2000, pp. 545-587.
“Donum Vitae.” In Religion and Artificial Reproduction: An Inquiry into the Vatican’s “Instruction on Respect for Human Live in Its Origin and on the Dignity of Procreation,” edited by Thomas A. Shannon and Lisa Sowle Cahill, Crossroad, 1988, pp. 140-174.