Bioethics in Faith and Practice, Volume 4, Number 1

16 The Ethics of IVF In traditional reproduction, an individual has the opportunity to select whom he or she would like to reproduce with; however, in most cases, selection is based on the desire for intimacy rather than to strategically produce an optimal child. In the minds of some, this leans dangerously close to eugenics. At the same time, however, the significance of producing a child with the genetic material of a stranger seems to warrant some amount of patient choice. The anonymity of donors has historically been a toss-up when it comes to law. Anonymous donation is an established norm in many places, and protected by law in some countries including Spain, France, and Denmark. However, Norway, Sweden, the Netherlands, and the UK, among other countries, require donors to be identifiable to their potential genetic offspring. 40 Advocates of anonymity emphasize the protection of the donors’ interest in privacy and the recipients’ interest in providing what they believe to be the best care for their future child, not wanting to create doubt in his or her identity or weaken family ties. Critics, however, claim that children have a right to know where their genetic information comes from, and even seek out their genetic parent if they so choose. However, giving children this right is controversial in itself, even if donors are mandated to be identifiable. Donors typically don’t see themselves as parents and don’t wish to be thought of as bearing any responsibility to the offspring that are produced with their DNA. Much of this discussion raises broader questions about the significance of genetics to family relationships and parenthood -- questions that never before demanded an answer, but that have already and will continue to be significant in the shaping of society, so long as family remains the building block of which it is made. This includes whether introducing a third party to the act of reproduction impacts a marriage, the significance of IVF over adoption when the child will ultimately only be partly related, and whether there is any obligation between parents and their genetic offspring. Surrogacy While the concept of anonymity is out of the question, surrogacy deals with the same difficulties of compensation and selection as donation, magnified a hundredfold. While egg donation is a fairly invasive procedure, gestation is a far more intrusive burden on everyday life and demands a full three-quarters of a year. Surrogacy removes not only conception, but childbearing itself from the context of the family. Sometimes, parents may have extra embryos left from previous failed IVF cycles, and choose to transfer to a surrogate instead of the intended mother with the hope of increasing the likelihood of pregnancy. However, in most cases when a surrogate is needed, only one of the intended parents can contribute genetic material at all. This raises even more questions about the role of genetics and family. What is the significance of biological children? If a child is going to be only 50% genetically related to the couple and will not be borne by the intended mother, what is the importance of conceiving this way as opposed to adoption? To what extent is the rise of surrogacy influenced by the broader trend of a desire for extreme control over the family-building process, and how far should that control be taken? 40 Immaculada De Melo-Martín, "How Best to Protect the Vital Interests of Donor-Conceived Individuals: Prohibiting Or Mandating Anonymity in Gamete Donations?" Reproductive Biomedicine & Society Online 3 (2016), 100-108.