Take Responsibility for Embryos
There are no ideal scenarios, but we must work for a solution.
by: David Cook
Before we can set significant guidelines regarding the fate of unused, frozen human embryos, we must ask: Who is responsible for them? Since embryos cannot make decisions, who gets to decide whether they will be donated, adopted, or destroyed?
Parents decide for their children, and families decide what will happen to an unconscious or dying family member.
Good fertility clinics will have clear protocols protecting the rights of parents and donors. The embryos in question were created to help the childless, so adopting or donating fulfills the same goal for the benefit of the child and the childless.
But parents are not the only ones who need to take responsibility.
Governments, hospitals, and medical authorities also need to have clear guidelines about dealing with potentially profitable human tissue. In the UK, a scandal involving hospitals taking human material from patients and using it without their consent led to funerals for body parts. The prospect of holding funerals for thousands of destroyed embryos is horrifying; yet if we believe we are dealing with human beings, what does it mean to give embryos dignity and respect?
Governments, hospitals, and medical authorities also need to have clear guidelines about dealing with potentially profitable human tissue. In the UK, a scandal involving hospitals taking human material from patients and using it without their consent led to funerals for body parts. The prospect of holding funerals for thousands of destroyed embryos is horrifying; yet if we believe we are dealing with human beings, what does it mean to give embryos dignity and respect?
Embryos must be protected from evil. Not everyone believes that embryos are fully human or deserve all the protection given to unborn life. But Christians believe there is a clear progression from the moment of fertilization to the person's death.
For those who believe in the sanctity of life, adoption, donation, or the development of artificial wombs to carry children who are not adopted seem the morally acceptable options for preserving life.
On the other hand, we cannot force those who are unconcerned about embryonic life to preserve it unless we offer genuine alternatives to the slaughter of the innocent: destroying "spare" embryos. Clinics, donors, and parents try to sell human tissue ranging from blood to organs, so they must take up the ethical question of selling embryos.
It is entirely plausible to go so far as pushing to legally ban human embryo destruction. Germany has such a ban, and also has one of Europe's most thriving biotech research sectors.
At the heart of fertility medicine is a deep desire to have children, help the childless, and make a great deal of money. A growing number of couples are desperate for children; adopting unused embryos to be carried in the wombs of infertile women may be those couples' best chance of having children.
Adoption is clearly a way of allowing embryos to be born and rectifying a bad situation in the child's best interest. It would proactively encourage the creation of fewer embryos, rather than reacting after the problem has been created.
Parents, medical workers, and everyone who is concerned about embryonic lives should begin by accepting responsibility for the problem and work for a solution that embraces the sanctity of life and protects the unborn. There are no ideal scenarios, but we can protect the innocent, preserve human life, and care for the needy.
Originally posted by Christianity Today, July 28, 2010
No comments:
Post a Comment