Reproductive Technologies: Ethical Implications

The authors of this article understand “ethical implications” as carrying these specific meanings: “reproduction” is the proper technical term for biological processes common to all mammals, including humans; and “procreation” denotes responsibilities, rights and choices peculiar to the human species in begetting and nurturing new life.

Cicero, Republic III, 22,33.

See Gaudium et Spes, n 16 in Vatican Council II: The Conciliar and Post-Conciliar Documents, New York: Costello, 1992, 916; Romans 2: 15–16; Johannes Grundel, “Natural Law” in Sacramentum Mundi, vol 4, 157, New York: Herder amd Herder, 1969; Joseph Boyle, “Natural Law” in The New Dictionary of Theology, Wilmington: Michael Glazier, 1987, 703–708; and St. Thomas Acquinas, Summa Theologiae 1a2ae, 91, 2–4.

Walter James J. “Presuppositions to Moral Judgments on Human Genetic Manipulation,” Chicago Studies 33 (1994), 228–239.

See Callahan Daniel “Living with the New Biology,” Center Magazine 5 (1972), 4–12.

Robertson John A. Children of Choice: Freedom and the New Reproductive Technologies, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994, 12–15.

Robertson John A. Children of Choice: Freedom and the New Reproductive Technologies, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994, 16.

Robertson John A. Children of Choice: Freedom and the New Reproductive Technologies, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994, 5.

Robertson John A. Children of Choice: Freedom and the New Reproductive Technologies, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994, 24.

Free Inquiry Interview, “Medicine: The Goodness of Planned Death,” Free Inquiry 11 (Fall 1991), 14–18; citation at 14.

See McCormick Richard “Some Early Reactions to Veritatis Splendor, Theological Studies 55 (1994), 481–506, especially 502–503; and Pope John Paul II, Veritatis Splendor, Origins 23 (1993), 297–334.

Barth Karl Church Dogmatics, III/2, 71–202.

See Gustafson James M. “Where Theologians and Genetic Meet,” Center for Theology and the Natural Science Bulletin 13 (1993), 1–9.

See Ashley Benedict M. , and O'Rourke Kevin D. , Healthcare Ethics, 3rd ed., St. Louis: The Catholic Health Association of the United States, 1989, 281–183.

See Rahner Karl “The Problem of Genetic Manipulation,” Theological Investigations, vol. 9, trans. Harrison Graham , New York: Crossroad, 1972, 244–252.

See Rahner Karl “The Problem of Genetic Manipulation,” Theological Investigations, vol. 9, trans. Harrison Graham , New York: Crossroad, 1972, 245.

Ramsey Paul Fabricated Man: The Ethics of Genetic Control, New Haven, Yale University Press, 1970, 38.

See San Francisco Chronicle, 4 June 1994, A8.

“Federal Panel Urges U.S. to Drop Its Ban On Financing Human Embryo Research,” New York Times, 28 September 1994, 16; see also “Panel Supports Embryo Research,” San Jose Mercury, 28 September 1994, 1 and 18 A.

See “Brave New Embryos,” Time, 29 August 1994, 60–61.

Morowitz Harold J. , and Trefil James S. The Facts of Life, New York: Oxford University Press, 1992, 52. Morowitz is the Clarence J. Robinson Professor of Biology and Natural Philosophy at George Mason University and Trefil is the Clarence J. Robinson Professor of Physics at George Mason University.

These types of ethical questions are addressed well by McCormick's Richard A. “Therapy or Tampering? The Ethics of Reproductive Technology and teh Development of Doctrine” in The Critical Calling, Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 1989, 329–352.

Cataldo Peter J. , and Moraczewski Albert S. ed., The Fetal Tissue Issue, Boston, Mass: The Pope John XXIII Medical-Ethics Center, 1994, xiv.

See Blank Robert H. Redefining Human Life, Colorado: Westview Press. 1984; John Cornwell, “Nature in the Laboratory,” The Tablet 14 (1994), 590–591; Bartels Diane M. , LeRoy Bonnie S. , and Caplan Arthur L. . eds. Prescribing Our Future: Ethical Challenges in Genetic Counseling New York: Aldine De Gruyter Press, 1993; Joseph A. Selling, “(In Search of) A Fundamental Basis for Ethical Reflection,” Ethical Perspectives 1 (1994) [Leuven], 13–21; and Thomas H. Murray and Stuart J. Youngner, “Organ Salvage Policies: A Need for Better Data and More Insightful Ethics,” Journal of the American Medical Association 272 (1994), 814–815.

Op. cit., 1.

See, e.g., Catechism of the Catholic Church Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1994, nn 1954–1960.

Einstein Albert “Science and Religion” (1939) in The World Treasury of Physics, Astronomy and Mathmatics, Ferris Timothy , ed., New York: Little Brown, 1991, 828–835, citation at 832.

We will rely here on two fundamental sources: The Critical Calling op. tit. and Inquiries in Bioethics, Post Stephen G. Washington, D.C., Georgetown University Press, 1993. See also “Human Research and Triage” and “Reconstructing Human Beings” in Ethics of Health Care, 2nd ed., Benedict M. Ashley and Kevin D. O'Rourke, Washington, D.C., Georgetown University Press, 1994, 113–128 and 169–188.

L'Osservatore Romano, 24 October 1982.

See Instruction on Respect for Human Life in Its Origin and the Dignity and Procreation, op. cit., Introduction: 3.

Ramsey Paul op. cit., 138.

Instruction on Respect for Human Life …, op. cit., 6.

Panel on Bioethical Concerns, National Council of Churches of Christ - U.S.A., Genetic Engineering: Social and Ethical Consequences, New York: Pilgrim Press, 1984, 34.

Human Genetic Engineering Hearings before the Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight of the Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives, 170 (1982), 303 and 305.

1980 Nobel laureate in Chemistry Paul Berg of Stanford University thus comments: “I can see the potential for this information to intrude on personal freedoms. We can already see this in tests that can detect susceptibility to certain chemicals. Employers might not hire people who have risks associated with exposure to these substances. Insurers might charge high premiums to cover these people or not insure them at all. Conceivably, the government could use this information to mandate how and where we live.” Medical Science News, November 1984.

Human Genetic Engineering op. tit, 305.

Cited in McCormick, op. cit., 269.

This and other similar options bring up the ethical/legal question of children suing parents for wrongful birth.

Inquiries in Bioethics, op. cit., 13.

Inquiries in Bioethics, op. cit. 16.

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction on Respect for Human Life in Its Origin and on the Dignity of Procreation: Replies to Certain Questions of the Day, Origins 16 (1987), 697–711.

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Part III. See “Moral Traditions, Ethical Language, And Reproductive Technologies,” The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 14 (1989), 497–522.

Introduction: 1. The authors do not address the question of the existence of an immortal soul; we do assume a uniquely human “source” of the rights and responsibilities set down in any system of laws.

Introduction: 2. This same point was made by Pope John Paul II in his talk, “The Ethics of Genetic Manipulation,” Origins 13 (1983), 385–389.

Introduction: 3.

Introduction: 4.

Introduction: 5.

It is tragic that this consensus is eroding among religions due to great social pressures. We feel that this value is essential in reaching a social consensus on reproductive technologies.

Part III.

We will follow Mc Cormick's basic analysis in The Critical Calling, op. cit. 333–352.

Robertson John A. op. cit., 5.

Acta Apostolicae Sedis [hereafter AAS] 41 (1949), 559–560.

AAS 43 (1951), 835–854. The Pope spelled out thispoint in even further detail on 19 May 1956 in his talk to the Second World Congress on Fertility and Sterility when he stated that the Church rejects the separation of “the biological activity from the personal relation of the married couple.” AAS (1956), 467–474.

McCormick Richard A. The Critical Calling, op. cit., 335. The critical essay that influenced Pope Pius XII was by F. Hurth, S.J., “La fecondation artificielle: Sa valeur morale et juridique,” Novelle revue theologique 68 (1946), 416 ff.

AAS 74 (1982), 119.

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction on Respect for Human Life in Its Origin and the Dignity of Procreation, San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1987.

Caffarra Carlo L'Osservatore Romano (English edition), 30 July 1984. See also William Daniel, “In vitro Fertilization: Two Problem Areas” in Moral Studies, Terence Kennedy, ed., Melbourne: Spectrum Publications, 1984, 27 ff. “Intrinsic” is an ethical term denoting that an action is per se good or evil: e.g., viewing a person as an object is of its very nature wrong as personal dignity demands the respect of subjectivity.

McCormick Richard The Critical Calling op. cit., 337. It should be noted that many writers reject this line of reasoning: they do not see IVF as “manufacture” of a “product.” Fertilization happens when sperm and egg are brought together in a petri dish. The technician's “intervention is a condition for its happening: it is not a cause.” (William Daniel, op. cit., 27.) Furthermore, some believe, the attitudes of the parents and technicians can be every bit as reverential and respectful as they would be in the face of human life naturally conceived.

See Ford Norma “Moral Issues that Arise in Experimentation on Human Embryos,” The Australian Catholic Record 63 (1986), 3–20; especially 11–12.

See Hilgers Thomas W. “Human Reproduction: Three Issues for the Moral Theologian,” Theological Studies 38 (1977), 147–149.

Fertility and Sterility 57 (1992), 15, 21.

See Overall Christine , Human Reproduction: Principles, Practices, Policies, Toronto: Oxford University Press, 1993, 167–168.

See Robertson John A. “Ethical and Legal Issues in Cyropreservation of Human Embryos,” Fertility and Sterility 47 (1987), 371–381.

AAS 41 (1949), 557–561.

Rahner Karl “The Problem of Genetic Manipulation,” Theological Studies 9, New York: Herder and Herder, 1972, 225–252; citation at 246.

The Critical Calling op. cit., 341.

Ramsey Paul op. cit., 88–89.

We here endorse and rely upon McCormick's outline in The Critical Calling op. cit., 330.

See also “Ethical Considerations of the New Reproductive Technologies,” Fertility and Sterility 46 (1986), Supplement 1.

Origins 12 (1982), 342.

See Robertson John A. op. cit., 102–104.

Grobstein Clifford , Science and the Unborn, New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1988.

Grobstein Clifford , Science and the Unborn, New York: Basic Books, Inc., 74.

The Holy See, Charter of the Rights of the Family, 23 October 1982, art.4.

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration on Procured Abortion, 18 November 1974. Printed in Vatican Council II/More Post Conciliar Documents, Flannery A. , ed., Dublin: Dominican Publications, 1982, 445–446. This same point has been reiterated in Evangelium Vitae (Origins 24, 1995, 689–727), esp. nn 57–63.

Morowitz Harold J. , and Trefil James S. The Facts of Life, New York: Oxford University Press, 1992.

Morowitz Harold J. , and Trefil James S. p 16.

Morowitz Harold J. , and Trefil James S. p 152.

See Science, 14 March 1980, 1165.