Medical Ethics 2 Flashcards
(65 cards)
Process of IVF
In Vitro Fertilisation
* Hormones used to stimulate egg production from ovaries
* Eggs are retrieved
* Mobile sperms are selected and injected into each egg
* 2-5 days later the fertilised eggs become embryos and 1-3 are placed in a thin catheter and inserted into the uterus
* embryos that aren’t transferred are frozen in liquid nitrogen, these can be used in subsequent cycles if the first attempt is unsuccessful
Scientific issues with IVF
- 1/7 couples in the UK have trouble conceiving
- IVF is successful for 29% of women under 35 and 23% of women 35-37
Legal issues with IVF
*clinics must decide whether couples will be suitable parents
*choosing sex of a baby using IVF is currently illegal
*since 2005, eggs and sperm cannot be donated anonymously
*if one partner removes consent to use their gametes, embryos must be destroyed
Political issues with IVF
*NHS recommended: women between 23 and 39 given 3 free cycles; women aged 40-42 given one
*41% of IVF treatments are funded by the NHS
*waiting times vary across the UK
*suggested age limit in England and Wales is 42 years old
Economic issues with IVF
- in 2018, the cost of one cycle was £5000 approximately
- the number of clinical commissioning groups offering the recommended three cycles has fallen from 16% (33) to 11.5% (24) in a year (2018)
- Croydon, in 2017, became the first London borough to stop funding IVF to save £836,000 annually
IVF by donor
- a woman may donate some of her eggs for another person’s treatment
- a man may donate sperm to fertilise donated eggs
- an embryo may be donated by another person
- risks: high blood pressure and preeclampsia are associated with IVF using donor eggs
IVF by family
- can help overcome infertility in both men and women
- can use donated eggs or sperm
- can help improve the chances of having a healthy baby
General arguments for IVF
- couples have a right to try for children, we should help those who are ill
- people could be saddened by infertility, Jesus would show compassion and heal
- ‘Go fourth and multiply’- using science to fulfil God’s plan
- doesn’t violate sanctity of life principle if no embryos are destroyed or if they only fertilise embryos they are going to implant
General arguments against IVF
- children are not a right but a gift
- IVF makes children like material possessions
- if embryos are destroyed, it violates the sanctity of life principle
- undermines sanctity and exclusiveness of marriage
- separates sex from reproduction- against natural moral law
- there are many children who need to be adopted
- costly with low success rates
- 1 Corinthians 10:23: ““Everything is permissible”- but not everything is beneficial. “Everything is permissible”- but not everything is
constructive.”
Catholic Church on IVF
- Humanae Vitae: a person must be respected as such from the very first instant of existence as a human being
- an unborn child must be the fruit of marriage
- IVF violates the rights of the child, perhaps depriving them of a relationships with their biological parents (hindering the maturing of their
personality) - it threatens the unity and stability of a family
- can lead to the destruction of life (violates SoL)
Church of England on IVF
- accepts it in all forms, including donation of gametes from third parties
- experimenting on ‘spare’ embryos is acceptable up until 14 days after fertilisation (primitive streak) (1984 report “Human Fertilisation and
Embryology”) - “We support the recommendation that research, under license, be permitted on embryos up to 14 days old and agree that embryos should
not be created just for scientific research” (Anglican report 1994)
Methodist Church on IVF
- believes it is right for scientists to try to learn more about causes and cures for infertility
- accepts using ‘spare’ embryos in medical research, but only before 14 days after fertilisation
Orthodox Church on IVF
- it is against IVF
- destroying embryos amounts to killing because human life, dignity and rights start at fertilisation
Cristobal Orrego
- a right is something tht is due to a person because that individual qualifies for it, so the question is do humans have the right to a child?
- A woman is a free agent, freedom including: a) a woman’s right to use her body as she sees fit; b) the freedom of choice. So, a woman
has the right to choose IVF if available - Natural rights: women feel a natural urge to be a mother, so denying motherhood to is against natural rights.
- However: naturalistic fallacy. A natural urge does not equate to a natural right
- Some argue that motherhood is not a right but a liberty (a privilege). It can be withdrawn if society thinks it is being abused or is not in
the interests of the majority
Who has the right to a child (IVF)?
- in UK, treatment is restricted to those under 50, but elsewhere fertility treatment has been used on women up to 70. Some see this as
against nature - It may be wrong to allow parents to be very elderly or dead by the time their children are adolescents
- Should treatment be given to single women or lesbian couples: October 2009, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act was amended so clinics no longer have to consider the ‘need for a father’ when assessing suitability for treatment
- instead, people will be assessed on their ability to offer supportive parenting. Sexual orientation is no longer a factor in the eyes of the
law
Moral status of fertilised embryos (IVF)
- when eggs have been fertilised only 2 or 3 are implanted (the ones graded as best)
- unused embryos may be: frozen and made available for later implantation, used in medical research (and then destroyed within 14 days
of fertilisation) or donated to other women, or destroyed - returns to question of when personhood begins
Moral status of the biological father (IVF)
- UK clinics can only pay expenses such as travel and loss of earnings to the donor. This is not the case in other countries.
Commercialisation raises issues about the relationship of the donor to the child. - The right to know: children born using donor sperm may wish to know their biological father later in.
- Before 2005, donors could remain anonymous. Children born after this date have the right to access details about the donor when they
are 18 - However, donors can still refuse contact with their donor-conceived child which can be psychologically damaging
- Legally, donor fathers are not required to take on any responsibilities for their donor-conceived children, but this doesn’t rule out questions about moral responsibility
Surrogate mothers (IVF)
- A women may not want to give up a child she carried for 9 months- a unique relationship
- In England surrogacy is not recognised by law, so there can be no legally binding agreement drawn up- in two cases in the UK, the
courts ruled against the surrogate - gay couples may be granted permission to use a surrogate by NHS and social services. However, the birth certificates for an IVF child
can contain the name of a single woman or two women - does a child need a female role model?
- this can break the deontological principle of treating people as and end in themselves rather than a mere means
Payment to surrogate mothers (IVF)
- it is illegal to pay for a surrogate in the UK, but legal in the US
- is it morally acceptable to buy and sell part of the human body? Does this devalue human life, go against natural order, or allow risk for
exploitation? - Surrogacy should be seen as a job just as prostitution is (Cecile Fabre)
- as children are not harmed by there being a surrogate, it is arguably permissible
Costs and the NHS (IVF)
- Practicality: IVF is expensive and prone to failure. NHS has limited funding and other services need to be prioritised. Any treatment that is
not for bettering of ill health cannot be justified - Psychological effects: the effect of not being able to have a child could have long lasting consequences for individuals, e.g. clinical
depression. Help will then be sought from the NHS anyway
History of Genetic Science
- plants and animals have been selectively bred for centuries
- 1970s, scientists learnt how to move pieces of genetic material between species
- Dolly the sheep- the first animal to be successfully cloned in 1996
- Human Genome Project- completed in 2003, all 46 chromosomes in the human body were mapped
Concerns with genetic science
- Eugenics- producing a society through the promotion of higher reproduction of people with more desired traits. and sterilising/killing those
with undesirable traits - e.g., Hitler’s ‘Aryan Race’
- sanctity of life seems to be violated
- long term effects include narrowing the gene pool, which can lead to children being born with defects
Dolly the Sheep
- born July 1996 to three mothers (one provided the egg, the other the DNA and the other carried the cloned embryo)
- was created using the somatic cell nuclear transfer technique, where the nucleus from an adult cell is transferred into an unfertilised oocyte
(developing egg cell) that has had its nucleus removed - the hybrid cell is ten stimulated to divide by an electric shock, and when it develops into a blastocyst it is implanted into a surrogate mother
- she was capable of reproduction, having had 6 lambs
- developed arthritis at 4, despite this being associated with old age
- she died at 6, half as young as sheep of her breed normally do, but this is not unusual for a sheep kept inside
Potential effect of cloning sheep
- we could resurrect extinct species and help breed endangered ones
- could produce food
- could eliminate diseases such as cancers
-however - Dolly was the only lamb out of 227 to survive to adulthood
- Wilmut, who led the team that created Dolly, announced in 2007 that the nuclear transfer technique may never work for humans
- 2003, Human Genome Project was competed, so we have the knowledge needed to clone us, but many object