Please read: "Fertility Clinic to Couple: You Got the Wrong Embryos" -- available at CNN.com.
Should the couple be required to give up the baby upon its birth? What is the ethical solution for this problem? Who do you consider to be the "real parents" in this situation-the couple who went through the pregnancy or the couple who's embryos were used? Lastly, what is your take on in-vitro fertilization?
(Submitted by Michael Keenan)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
While reading the article, I found surprising similarities between the details of the article and Thompson's "Violinist Thought Experiment."
ReplyDeleteIn Thompson's thought experiment, a famous violinist falls into a coma. The society of music lovers determines that you and you alone can save the violinist's life by being hooked up to him for nine months. In consequence, the music lovers break into your house when you are sleeping and hook the violinist to you. You can unohok the violinist, but he is innocent and has a right to life.
In this experiment in relation to the article, the fetus is represented by the violinist; the carrier [Carolyn Savage] is represented by "you" the one who is attached to the violinist; and the music society is represented by the hospital who made the mistake [in the original example, it represented a rapist].
In the article, Carolyn says she feels violated due to the tragic mix-up, and I believe that that is natural. In a way, she was given the role of the carrier who had their house broken into and was attached to a violinist against her will. However, despite this problem, the example shows that "you" still have somewhat of a responsibility to the violinist. She has a responsibility to the fetus although there was a gross mix-up.
Although she has a responsibility, I believe that the couple should still be required to give up on the baby upon its birth. Although, she may be emotionally attached to teh baby, it is important to think about the situation from the other perspective. It would be devastating to be the other family who has their DNA baby taken away from them due to a mix up at the hospital. I feel that although pregnancy is an emotional position that the parents are put into, but the DNA parents still have a "right" to their baby.
It just does not seem fair to the genetic parents if they do not receive their baby due to a hospital error; however, I believe that Carolyn should be allowed to visit the baby she helped bring into this world. I think this is "fair" for both sides.
Overall, I do not criticize in-vitro fertilization. Many people might say it is unnatural; however, I believe it is a medical necessity for some. IVF is a major treatment in infertility when other methods of assisted reproductive technology have failed. This I believe creates greater good in the world for individuals who are not able to conceive naturally. Although mix-ups such as the one in the article might occur, I believe that these rare occasions do not occur often enough to counteract the good IVF bestows.
~Tully Cheng
I would argue that taking a non-normative approach to this dilemma would be most appropriate, as a factual and empirical approach to this problem would perhaps help to promote a fair, unbiased decision to be made in a circumstance in which conflicting beliefs, values and interpretations may otherwise prevent a ‘fair’ decision from being made.
ReplyDeleteIn considering this dilemma, the primary conflict seems to be the (involuntary) surrogate parent’s right to the baby versus the genetic parent’s right to the baby. One could call upon the theory of rights to justify that the surrogate mother has the right to the baby because her individual rights give her the right to parent the child she bears. But the same theory of rights could also justify that the genetic mother has a right to the baby because it was her eggs and her husband’s sperm that conjoined to create that baby. Therefore, in this case, the theory of rights does not seem to suffice to determine who has the right to be the “real parents,” as this theory does not provide a basis for weighing the competing rights of individuals.
Because it is not evident who has a more legitimate right to the child, it seems that evaluating potential solutions based on their ability to do the most good for greatest amount of involved parties might be the next best solution. In other words, the theory of consequentialism could help implement a decision making process that would focus on developing a solution with the primary goal being to achieve positive results/consequences for as many of the stakeholders as possible. This approach asks us to determine then, if the stakeholders are the surrogate parents, the genetic parents and the child itself, then what would be considered a positive or good result for each of those stakeholders? What or who determines what is a positive result, especially if the stakeholders hold different religious or moral values that lead them to believe that different outcomes are better or more righteous? For example, what if the surrogate mother wants another chance at having a baby that is genetically her own or does not want to endure 9 months of pregnancy for a baby that isn’t her own, and believes it is her prerogative to abort the fetus? If aborting the fetus is against the will of the genetic parents because the genetic parents are anti-abortion or because the genetic parents want to raise the child as their own, what, then, is the outcome that benefits the greatest amount of the stakeholders? Once again, it does not seem clear.
Additionally, it seems prudent to consider the child as a stakeholder in the matter, which then begs the question, what is in the best interest of the child? Would the most positive outcome be for the child to be with the genetic parents or the surrogate parents? How would one decide which parents are better parents and based on what criteria? Would the doctor have prerogative to decide what should happen to the child because he has the obligation to ensure the result is in the best interest of his patient? Without an objective way to determine what the most positive outcomes would be for the stakeholders, including the child him/herself, it seems that the theory of consequentialism would also not be an ethically justifiable way to determine who the “real parents” are.
Therefore, if we can’t determine whose rights are superior or whose beliefs hold more merit in an ethically justifiable way, we must resolve to consider the facts in order to decide who the “real parents” are. Factually, based on the science of genetics, the parents of a child are the woman and the man whose eggs and sperm come together to develop into a fetus. This precedent may be contradicted by certain beliefs, lifestyles or religious traditions, but from a scientific, factual perspective, the genetic parents are the “real parents.” Therefore, I would argue, that in the event of a conflict, the genetic parents have an ethically justifiable claim that the child is theirs.
The couple should be required to give up the baby after its birth. If one is considering this from a purely medical perspective, the baby's "real parents" are those whose genes it possesses. The mother in whom the embryo was implanted was only a carrier for the baby, she did not provide the majority of its genetic material. The baby does not inherit its hair or eye color from the woman who carries it, it will not be more at risk for certain genetic diseases or possess specific alleles because it spent the first 9 months of its existence in another woman's womb. The baby's genetic code is dictated only by the egg and sperm that created it. Scientifically speaking, the baby's parents are its genetic parents.
ReplyDeleteIf the baby's parents are, in fact, the man and woman who provide the genetic code, then it should follow that they have claim to the baby once it is born. Though the birth mother may have some emotional attachment to the baby, the legitimacy of her claim is less than that of the genetic parents. Ethically, one must look at what each side has to lose or gain in this situation in order to determine what will do the most good for the most people. The genetic parents may be losing their only opportunity to have a child of their own, especially if the limited number of eggs that can be taken from the genetic mother were all implanted as embryos into the birth mother. They could also be losing their only child if the birth mother intends on keeping it. The birth mother, on the other hand, would lose a child which she brought into the world, and unfortunately the money that is required for 9+ months of medical bills. However, she may have other opportunities to have children, especially since her embryos are still frozen and viable. If we decide what is ethically correct by determining what will do the most good for the most people, then it seems obvious that the genetic parents should have custody of the baby, they have more to lose and less that can be replaced, in a sense. Although the birth mother may feel remorse over losing the child, she has other opportunities to have more children.
Regardless of the outcome of the custody debate, I take issue with the family's desire to have a fourth child because the mother's age puts her and the child at a huge risk for health problems. Incidence of Down syndrome in children born to mothers over the age of 35 increases dramatically when compared to children born to mothers in their 20s or early 30s. Similarly, the risk of stillbirth or miscarriage escalates with age. For a woman like Carolyn, who has already suffered through so many pregnancy complications, the risk of chronic health problems or death increases significantly with age. As a prominent stakeholder in this situation, one must wonder why Carolyn chose to wait so long to utilize the remainder of her and her husband's embryos. If she was truly concerned with the loss of life that would occur if her embryos were not used, why did she not ensure that she and her potential children would remain healthy throughout the entire process by having the embryos implanted while she was younger? In vitro fertilization is a god-send for many couples, allowing them to build families they would otherwise be unable to have. However, if the mother is too old to have children naturally, or if her body is unable to cope with the stress of pregnancy, then is in vitro fertilization still the best option?
I do not think that the couple should be required to give up the baby upon birth. However, this situation could be argued either way because Carolyn knew so early on about the mix up. She could have chosen to terminate the pregnancy but rather took a utilitarian point of view--what would make the other parents happiest, and what would she want to be done for her had the mix up been the other way. She is religiously against killing embryo's and therefore could not based upon her morals terminated the pregnancy.
ReplyDeleteSarah Puklin
There is also the issue of responsibility. It was not Carolyn's responsibility to implant the embryo and she was not the one who made the mistake. She is putting her body at risk as we have seen with past pregnancies for her were very dangerous. She is risking her life essentially to carry a child--how could one say that she does not have a right to this child. If she could have chosen then this obviously would not have been the favorable option for her but it is what happened. What if the doctors had not figured out right away, or better yet until after birth, that the child was not hers? Then would they still require her to give up a child that she mothered for however long because they claim that it is not her child. Then is having children just based upon if they are DNA related. What about adopted children. Obviously in an adoption both parents agree to the terms of the adoption usually to achieve what is best for both the parents and the child. There are also hormones released during pregnancy that cause a mother, carrying mother, and a fetus to bond regardless of the fetus's initial DNA.
So in this situation she is choosing to give back the child, so the solution is simple. However what if she wanted to keep the child. Who is to say that she can not keep a child that she carried for 9 moths. Wasn't this the doctors mistake that they implanted the wrong embroy.
In response to the post above IVF can take time and they said in the article that they tried, for 10 years, to have children naturally before they turned to IVF. They had some of the embryos implanted when she was younger of which her 18 month old baby is the result. She had success in the past with IVF so what would she have any reason to believe that it would not work this time. It might not be that she is too old to have children naturally, plenty of women give birth at age 39 she just had trouble getting pregnant. Carolyn did nothing wrong in this situation and therefore should not be forced to give up the child. There is no indication that the child's safety is in question or that both parents would love the child though it is hard to judge without the input of the DNA parents.
A few have here have argued that scientifically the genetic parents are the “real” parents and should gain custody of the child upon birth. Their logic is that the genetic code is the determining factor in this situation, however, it is not apparent to me that this is a scientific fact. It is correct to say that the ultimate origin of the child came from the sperm and egg of another couple along with the DNA that those gametes contained. It is also true that the combined DNA of these gametes will provide the template for further development and differentiation; however, that is the extent of the genetic parents’ contribution. For example, a person (lets say at birth) is comprised of a great number of cells, but the raw material that those cells consist of--except for a miniscule percentage that originated from the single embryo--has been provided by the gestational mother. As an analogy, two developers have plans to build skyscrapers in the city, but first they have to submit the plans to the city for approval. The city approves both but mixes them up when sending them back in the mail. One developer doesn't notice and begins construction on the skyscraper. When the skyscraper is finished, they realize the mistake and the second developer claims that they own that skyscraper because it was their plans that built it. The first developer argues that they spent the time, labor, materials and opportunity cost to build it so they should own the building. My point is that the definition of ‘real’ parents isn’t necessarily fact.
ReplyDeleteI do agree with their conclusion that the biological parents should be allowed to keep the child. I base my decision on the consequences for the child because I argue that it is impossible to resolve parenthood based on what what the two couples might lose or gain as a result of the decision as much of that which is to be lost is subjective and therefore difficult to quantify. The child, however, will not look like the gestational mother, father or other siblings and may suffer psychological stress and/or trauma upon finding out about his/her biological parents. In contrast if he were to stay with the genetic parents, he would not exhibit any physical traits of the gestational mother therefore never feeling out of place with his/her family which would most likely mean less psychological stress as a result. There is also the fact that the genetic parents would be more likely to be prepared for any hereditable diseases or conditions as they would most likely already be familiar with them. One also has to consider the opportunity cost of not knowing his/her biological, and ethnic heritage. My conclusion is that when you consider the child to be the only player and consider what he or she stands to lose and gain, it seems that the most good would be done by placing the child in the genetic parents’ custody at birth.
From the perspective presented by this article, it seems the situation is only tragic for the Savages who have been trying to conceive for 10 years. Carolyn has given birth to three children before she and her husband turned to in vitro fertilization. We do not know whether the genetic parents have had any children of their own. Perhaps this tragic event is even more of a ‘nightmare’ to them. I believe that the couple should be required to give up the baby to its genetic parents at the time of birth. The embryos belonged to the genetic parents and they should not have to let/allow the bearer keep the baby due to an accidental mix-up by the clinic. I agree with Leslie on the fact that it is still possible for the Savages to have another baby of their own, if a surrogate were found. The carrier may be very emotionally attached to the baby; however, I would argue that it is not ‘her’ baby and it would be much harder for the genetic parents to overcome the fact that their baby is no longer theirs because the embryos are in another woman who also wants a baby.
ReplyDeleteIf we’re taking the baby into consideration as a stakeholder in this case, what would make the baby’s life a little less complicated when it grew older? Knowing that both his parents are not his biological parents and that he only belongs to the family simply because of an accident? Or just knowing that his parents are his biological parents? The latter suggests that the baby doesn’t need to know about this mix-up, which one could also argue otherwise. There seems to be no reason for the baby to need to know unless the Savages and the parents both believe it is necessary. This would not be an option though if the Savages keep the baby because of its genetic/physical traits that would easily imply its parents are not its genetic parents. The baby may feel the need to know who its parents are. The situation would only expand and perhaps worsen as time moved on and as the baby becomes more curious.
I believe in-vitro fertilization has helped many couples become parents despite the rare accidents. It should not be blamed for these undesired results simply because of minor faults caused by the workers.
I agree with Jackie. The article is presented in a way that makes the genetic parents seem like monsters for feeling the baby is rightfully theirs. Though the Savages are in a terrible situation I beleive that they should have to give the child back to the genetic parents. The genetic parents are not at fault here, they did not cause this mix up.
ReplyDeleteThe counter arguement here is that the Savages have the right to keep the child. Carolyn carried, nourished, and raised the child in the womb. The Savages also have the stronger emotional bond with the child. One could argue that any surrogate mother then had the right to claim the child she is carrying is hers if she so chooses. However, the genetic parents give that child its hair color, facial features, height, all the things that make someone who are they. In almost every instance genes win in custoday battles. This case I do not believe should differ. The genetic parents are the rightful parents of the unborn child.
Although I cannot imagine having to make the decision that the Savages did they should take into account the children they already have and the children the genetic parents may not have. I believe that the decision the Savages made was based on utilitarianism. The Savages would not have given this child back to the rightful parents if they believed it would result in the child's unhappiness. The genetic parents were obviously fit to take care of and provide for this child. Ultimately that is what matters most. And how fit are the Savages? They are portrayed in a way that victimizes them, but when rereading the article it makes me wonder if the mix up was a blessing rather than a curse. The Savages already have 3 children, one of which is just over a year old. And as Jackie mentioned, what exactly is the situation of the genetic parents? We know that Carolyn has had many miscarriages, but maybe the genetic mother has had twice as many. We know that Carolyn has 3 children, maybe the genetic mother has none. We know that Carolyn is 39 and this is likely her last pregnancy, but maybe the genetic mother is 49 and hasn't had a successful pregnancy.
Utilitarianism means the greatest good for the greatest number. The Savages had a very strong emotional attachment to this child, that is obvious. There is obviously going to be some pain and hurt that come out of this for them. However, the happiness of their children, the unborn child, and the genetic parents will greatly outweigh the emotional pain that the Savages may be feeling. I believe that the Savages are doing the ethically responsible thing by returning this child to its genetic parents.
The dilemma that I see in this case of the mix up of implanted embryos, is which couple should get custody of the baby. It is a decision between the couple that is carrying the baby (the Savages) vs. the couple whose embryos were used. I think that with this ethical dilemma that the Savages should be required to give up the baby to its genetic parents. The argument in favor of my position is that it was not the fault of the DNA parents of transferring their embryos to Carolyn; it was the misdoing of the fertility clinic. They should not suffer loss of custody of the baby because of this mix up that they had no control of. If we look at the position that the DNA parents are we can see that this isn’t an ideal situation for them either. They have to cope with another woman, Carolyn, carrying their baby through pregnancy. Carolyn's behaviors during the pregnancy will have an effect on the baby. I think that the DNA parents are allowed to be aware of her actions during the pregnancy since it genetically is their child she is carrying, but I don’t think that they can have complete control over what she does. Carolyn is doing a good deed of unintentionally carrying someone else’s baby that she will give up, and so I think that it is fair if she is entitled to her freedom during the pregnancy. I think that Carolyn’s individual case with pregnancy is very unique. Her pregnancy with her first child was easy, but her second child was 10weeks premature and also caused her to have life threatening complications. Then her and her husband struggled for ten years to get pregnant until using the option of in-vitro fertilization. It is very easy to feel bad for someone like Carolyn who has had difficulty with pregnancy, but that emotion should not factor into ethically deciding which couple should get the baby. Even though the Savages are pregnant with the baby, I think that the “real parents” are the ones whose embryos it belongs to. I personally think that in-vitro fertilization is a great technological advance in the field of medicine. It serves for the greater good because it allows couples with reproductive difficulty, like the Savages, to have an equal chance of becoming pregnant. This case with the mix up of embryos shows that error can occur, but it is rare with IVF. The article mentions that there are 100,000 embryo transfers a year in America, and one mix up among that many transfers does not make the system imperfect.
ReplyDeleteThis article offered a story both debatable and tragic. The family put in this situation has a rough road ahead of them. The place where the IVF transmission occurred messed up royally. Beyond effecting two families lives, the unborn babies life will be effected, as well as creating long term issues in the Savage's life. Leading Mrs. Savage to not be able to have her own child is just one of many of the upsetting outcomes of this situation. The money, time, and effort the Savage's must put into this baby which is not going to end up being theirs is an ethical debate in and of itself because who will be covering the costs? Who will be covering the doctor's visits?
ReplyDeleteIn terms of who are the real parents, those who gave their embryos, not the Savages, are the "real parents."Had it been me in this situation I would expect to receive "my baby" back. Who knows, maybe those embryos that were given to Mrs. Savage could have been the last that she had to give. Had that been the case, than she would no longer be able to have a child due to the messy situation that this Ohio clinic created. I believe the couple should most definitely be required to give up the baby upon its birth. Although the pain and sorrow will be excruciating, the pain, jealousy, and anguish the other family would feel would be worse. The ethical solution for the problem would be, as the article stated, to make sure that the Savage's embryo's are able to be used and carried out effectively and safely, to therefore give the Savages what they wanted, a child of their own. As it is believed, what is "ethically correct" is what gives good to the greatest amount of people and this is by giving the child back to the genetically predisposed parents as well as making up for the pain the Savages suffered by placing their embryo's in a carrier's body.
Although this situation offers a terrible mishap in the in-vitro fertilization process, over all i think that it is an ethical process. It offers those who are unable to have children the opportunity to do so.
Carolyn, the woman implanted with the incorrect embryo, acted justly by agreeing to relinquish her rights to the child she is currently carrying after his birth. If she had decided not to continue with the pregnancy, after discovering the embryos she was given were not hers, then I believe that is also a morally acceptable decision. I believe she would be justified in ending the pregnancy because, although the baby genetically belongs to his birth parents, she has the rights to her own body, and therefore her uterus, during the pregnancy. It is noble of Carolyn to continue the pregnancy and bear the physical and emotional burdens of carrying a child that is not hers.
ReplyDeleteUltimately, the doctors who mixed up the embryos are responsible for this untimely situation. The doctors failed their obligation of nonmaleficence because they have inflicted emotional harm on these families and, possible physical harm, on the woman carrying this child. These doctors should legally be held responsible for this type of medical malpractice. Although their acts were unintentional, they still acted negligently by mishandling the embryos at their clinic. These doctors are also very lucky that the Savages, the couple implanted with the wrong embryos, are not releasing the name of the clinic that performed this procedure to the public.
This case exemplifies the need for reform at in-vitro fertilization clinics. The article states that, “…identification procedures are not legally mandated, but mistakes can occur if they are not followed,” and I find this troubling because clearly these doctors, and hopefully legislators, are aware that in-vitro fertilization clinics are lacking in strict protocol about implanting embryos. The article also states that 100,000 embryos are transferred every year, and I believe that there should be a more strict physical and mental screening process for the families requesting these implantations. For example, Carolyn is a 39-year-old woman who has delivered three children, two of which were born prematurely. Not only is this woman at an age when child bearing starts becoming extremely dangerous, both for the mother and for the child, but she has also experienced two difficult pregnancies. I think this couple’s desire for more children, on the basis of their religious beliefs, is morally unjust because they are putting Carolyn’s and the unborn child’s life at risk by pursuing this pregnancy. I find it surprising that the medical professionals at this in-vitro fertilization clinic decided to go through with such a high-risk pregnancy in the first place because, according to Carolyn’s medical history, I do not think anymore births would be in her health’s best interest.
Mother, one with the gift of life who nurtures and aids in the development of another; an irreplaceable bond, personally I believe this to be the definition of mother. Although it is clear that Carolyn Savage is not the biological “mother” (embryo donor) to the newborn, I do believe she is the mother through other perspectives. To simply supply the ingredients does not make one the ingenious creator… It is clear that the embryo donors did not “will” this accident to take place, but it did, and to completely disclaim the attachment developed during the nine months of prenatal development seems a little incomprehensible. This conclusion seems only to have been reached by a subjective definition of the word “mother”.
ReplyDeleteSeeing as the result of this accident was not the predicted outcome by either party, it seems unsuitable to use the theory of consequentialism to assess the situation. However, according to the theory of deontology what determines if an act is in nature wrong or right is assessed on the basis of intention and abidance to duty. Seeing as within the situation both women are significant stakeholders, I don’t believe there is an absolute mother under these defined circumstances. Disregarding the consequence of the accident, regardless of the intent of those involved if one aids in the creation of another life, the responsibility for that life is bestowed upon them. Thus, both women have a duty to take care of the child.
Sean states, "We want him to know that it wasn't that we didn't want him, but too many people wanted him”. In the case that there is too much love to go around, who’s to say that there should be a cap put on the amount of people that could love another being. In addition, Kant believed that no one should be used as simply the means to an end, but rather everyone should be deemed a mean within themselves. Meaning everyone should be given autonomy over their decisions, and have their own sense of agency. Perhaps what is best is to for the mothers to jointly raise the child and allow the child to choose when he is of age.
Lastly, I am completely for invitro-fertilization, it allows for perfectly willing and able adults to share the magic of raising a child.
I agree that it is difficult to determine who is the primary stakeholder in this situation. The DNA reads that the baby belongs to its genetic parents, yet it is Carolyn Savage that had to go through the trials of pregnancy, which gives her a deeper connection to the child. As the previous post brought up, it is not just genes that determine a mother/baby relationship. Obviously each time this situation occurs the situation is different, but I think that where Carolyn had already had difficulties with pregnancy and this was her last chance, it would make sense emotionally to let her keep the child. However, ethically, the child belongs to the original parents, and I understand why they would win custody of the child. Lucky for these parents, the Savages were morally conscientious of the situation. Like many moral disagreements, either action will cause suffering to a stakeholder – there is no alternate solution that can be found.
ReplyDeleteIt is also important to think about the embryo, and what will protect it later in life, what will be its best interest, since it is also a stake holder. It is impossible to determine, but as the child grows older and learns about the situation of its birth, will he or she agree with the decision? That being said, I disagree with a previous poster on the fact that the birth mother should be involved in the child’s life after they give it up. Although who keeps the child is a difficult decision, I believe that once the decision is reached it needs to be kept, for the best interest of the child. It is not morally fair to the child to confuse it by having both families in its life. When he or she grows old enough to understand he or she should be told of the situation, and it should be left up to the child whether or not they would like to contact the Savages.
This is a clear example of moral regret and residual obligation, that suggest that even the morally best action can be regrettable – the Savages have a moral obligation to give up the child, they even said that they would want someone to do the same for them, and the other family was also going through a difficult experience. However they will still regret not being able to keep the child, particularly since they will never have another chance to have a baby.
I disagree with the previous poster on the fact that the birth mother should be involved in the child’s life after they give it up. Although who keeps the child is a difficult decision, I believe that once the decision is reached it needs to be kept, for the best interest of the child stakeholder. It is not morally fair to the child to confuse it by having both families in its life. When he or she grows old enough to understand he or she should be told of the situation, and it should be left up to them whether they want to contact the family or not.
In a utilitarian view the most ethical decision would be the one that benefited both parties to the greatest extent. This is extreme, but by impregnating the other woman with Carol’s embryos, they both get to have the experience of being pregnant and they both get to have a child at the end of the pregnancy, even if it is not the one they carried. This would have worked better if the clinic found out that they had made a mistake right after impregnating Carol so that they could quickly let the other family know what happened and impregnate that mother as soon as possible; that way they would have the babies at relatively the same time. Now this is not necessarily what I believe should happen, for there are many ethical dilemmas involved in this plan such as if one of the women miscarries, one of the babies ends up being physically or mentally disabled, or if one of the pregnancies ends up putting the mother in a possibly fatal situation. However, this could be seen as the most ethical way to rectify this situation because both families would hypothetically be getting the end result that they wanted, in a potentially more fair way.
ReplyDelete-Jessie Kavanagh