In the world of medical ethics, there are several topics so controversial that they dominate the literature. Artificial reproductive technology is one of these topics. I looked at two historical pieces, as well as one version of Genesis, to examine some of the arguments surrounding artificial reproductive technology.
The first piece, Donum Vitae, discusses the Roman Catholic Church’s position on in vitro fertilization as of 1987. The arguments put forth in Donum Vitae were all extrapolated from a clearly defined set of moral principles. The first principle, “The human being must be respected-as a person-from the very first instant of his existence,” argues that all embryos are human and must therefore be treated as sacred (Crossroad 1988). This principle is interpreted to mean that no person, be that a medical professional, a parent, or another individual, may kill, harm, or endanger an embryo. This principle comes from an interpretation of religious literature by a religious authority from which they then try to justify with a biological basis. However, this is a flawed justification. They argue that when a single new cell with a unique genetic code is produced, a new human is born. There are several flaws in that train of thought. One example is single human cells (such as a single skin cell) may have a unique genetic code due to a mutation (such as the case with cancer) yet does not have a human identity. Therefore, the contrapositive argument—single cells with a unique DNA identity must have a unique human identity—cannot be true.
The second principle is a functional corollary of the first principle; medical technology may only be used in a therapeutic sense. This follows logically as this principle prohibits any sort of medicine or medical imaging that puts any person (or fetus) at risk without a sincere intention to help cure that individual. The third principle is that every child has a right to “be conceived and to be born within marriage and from marriage” (Crossroad 1988). Marriage, according to the Roman Catholic Church, must be between a man and a women. Overall, when looking at the Roman Catholic Church’s stance on medical issues, it is important to consider these three principles as these are fundamental beliefs derived from religion. Just as the Roman Catholic Church makes its decisions based on a set of criteria, so did the French government circa 1994.
In 1994, the French National Assembly passed laws regulating artificial reproductive technology based on recommendations from the French National Bioethics Committee. The policies that were chosen seemed to echo enlightenment ideas. These policies were mostly based off of two principles: preservation of family and preservation of nature. To clarify, the ideas of both family and nature differ greatly between cultures, and even within a culture, so these were the definitions held by the French National Bioethics Committee at that time. The Bioethics Committee looked at how Rousseau drew importance to the family and decided that the “bi-parental heterosexual family unit” was the proper familial unit (Ball 2000). This principle also implies that other family styles (such as single parents and homosexual parents) were a detriment. I attribute this blatant homophobic principle to the Committee’s (irrational) fear that these non-traditional family units will change or destroy the current French values system.
The second principle the French National Bioethics Committee used is the idea that policy should preserve nature. This principle is based on the erroneous logic that nature is always good. The Committee seemed to arbitrarily decide what is considered natural and justified policy based on that.
When we examine policy regarding reproductive technology, it is vital to examine these policies through the viewpoint of the policy makers (the Church or the Assembly). One must examine policy with the understanding that each groups assumes their principles are sound. Once those assumptions are made, we can somewhat account for cultural relativism. It is logical that the Roman Catholic Church disagrees with IVF. If it is heterologous IVF, it violates the child’s right to have a mother and father. If homologous IVF for married individuals, the destruction of “spare” embryos as part of IVF violates each embryo’s right to live and thus is equivalent to murder. The French restrict IVF to heterosexual couples who either have lived together for over two years or are married to prevent the violation of their established principles. Homosexual couples and single individuals were not permitted to use IVF as it violates their idea of a family. Postmenopausal woman were also not permitted to use IVF as it violates their idea of nature.
I also looked at the first two chapters of the Chabad version of Genesis with Rashi’s (a Jewish authority’s) commentary. The line that discusses procreation talks about the fetus as “one flesh” which Rashi took to interpret as coming from both the father and mother (Genesis 2:24). I see how it is possible to interpret this passage as every child must have a mother and father, but my personal interpretation is strictly biological; each child comes from a man and a woman but nothing more. Therefore based on this passage, I personally would not believe any principles exist that would ban IVF.
Overall when looking at how different groups treat IVF, looking at the specifics of each policy will only bring you back to look at the principles, or justifications, each group gives for their actions. Studying those assumptions allows us to be able to understand these cultures better than policy alone.