Embryo Adoption, Term Paper Example

Many people are unable to have children through natural means for one reason or another and these people often look to adoption as an option for having children. However, there are times when adoption options are limited, due to the scarcity of available babies to adopt, as many people want to adopt babies instead of older children. As new technologies have come into play, the consideration of adopting embryos left over from fertility treatments is now a viable option for those who seek to adopt. This literature review examines three articles relevant to this topic that focus on how embryos are seen in terms of being potentials for human life regarding adoption, the issues surrounding the acquisition, distribution and disposal of potential human life embryos, and the disparities associated with adoption and embryo donation.

Disposition of Human Embryos

According to the article, “Adoption first? The disposition of human embryos”, by Timothy F. Murphy, one viable option for those who want to adopt is adopting embryos made available through in vitro fertilizing efforts. This would require the implementation of laws and policies that would “require some human embryos created in vitro to beavailable for adoption for a period of time”[1]This would leave possible children to be born for those people who are looking to adopt. The question then arises about what happens if the embryos are not adopted within the allotted timeframe. One possible outcome is that the embryos are then disposed of or used for research purposes, but this draws attention to another question, which is whether or not the embryos deserve to be respected as human persons.[2]Objectively, there are, no doubt, two sides to this issue. There are some people who say that the embryos are not yet human, so they should be treated as such, and there are some people who feel the opposite.

Murphy (2014) writes about a theory that pertains to unborn life and possible human rights respect for human embryos because theymight become humans, if given the chance. The article asserts this should be considered until the time when and if an embryo will never become a person, due to medical reasons. This view asserts that embryos left over from fertility treatments should be made available for possible adoption, just in case someone would like to step forward and do so, and then if not, the consequences of discarding them or using them for science should be considered.[3]

Analysis of this Concept

This is an interesting concept, considering all the controversy surrounding pro-life issues that have been seen in the media over the years, particularly given the notion that many couples long to have children who are unable for various reasons. This concept can be seen in two ways. One way has to do with possible ownership of the embryos and whether or not the same adoption rules and laws in place for adopting children who are already here would apply to the adoption of embryos. Also, it is possible that if embryo adoption were made legally available, people may resort to selling their embryos, which would open up a whole new area of concern and controversy.

Another way to see this concept is through the eyes of the people who lovingly want to have children and would gladly adopt unwanted embryos to bring them to full life. Some may see discarding embryos when there are people who would want them as cruel. Additionally, the concept of embryo adoption brings up the issue of donations. Could donating embryos be in the same class as donating organs? Would this turn into an entire market?There is a certain ethics connotation associated with embryo adoption, which concerns embryo disposition, obstructing the pursuit of fertility medicine, and over-population.[4]

First, embryo disposition is talked about in Murphy’s article referring to the genetic parents or people used to create the embryos should have the say-so over what happens to the embryos. The two sides to this view are as follows: On the one hand, one could argue that the embryos are the property of those who were used to create them, so those persons should have the right to say whether or not someone could adopt them. On the other hand, one could argue that embryos are no one’s property because they have their own rights, and therefore, should not be treated as property, which means they are fair game to anyone else who wants to take unwanted embryos and help them develop into human form.[5]So does this all mean that the “parents” of embryos are not actually anyone’s children? Or is the contrary correct? If the contrary is correct, then just because a child is not property does not mean that the child’s parents do not have “dispositional rights over them.”[6]

Second, mandating embryo adoption would get in the way of the purpose of fertility medicine is another concern. This raises the notion that people may not seek fertility treatments if they know they can just adopt an embryo instead. Or on the other hand, people might not like the idea of their left over embryos being adopted out, so this may deter them from seeking fertility treatments. This would, no doubt, leave a big dent in the fertility business profits. The solution to this is offered as limiting the production of embryos in the first place, instead of over doing it and storing too many than one needs. It would cut down on all the extra embryos.[7] This would also cut down on just creating embryos only to have them destroyed and wasted.

Third, is the concern of over-populating the earth if there was a mandate that required left over embryos to be put up for adoption. This would be the result of multiple births of “unwanted” people. More children would be born. The article points out that this is no reason to deny future people from being born. It is further pointed out that mandating embryo adoption may put women at risk for having more pregnancies or more children in one pregnancy to keep their embryos from being made available for adoption, which comes back to allowing the genetic parents the say-so on whether their embryos are put up for adoption.

The article leans more toward being for putting up embryos for adoption, as it states, “the moral principle of respect for personsrequires steps to protect embryos from destruction until suchpoint as it is clear that they are not going to develop as persons.Doing so does not interfere with women’s lives in the same waythat prohibitions of abortion would.”[8]

Acquisition, Distribution and Disposal of Potential Human Life Embryos

In the article, “Acquiring, Distributing, and Disposing of Potential Human Life: The Current Status of Human Embryos Beyond Chicanery II” by J. Brad Reich, the legal status of human embryos are examined.It refers to the findings of the 1973 Roe v. Wade case, that stipulates that “embryos are not ‘persons’ possessing independent rights under federal common law.”[9] The articles goes on to point out all of the different legislative laws on this subject by state, as well as the views of various reproductive and fertility organizations.

However, the article specifically focuses on Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) and the details behind the acquisition of human embryos. It talks about the many people who are not able to conceive a child naturally and how they turn to artificial means to get a child. This includes artificial insemination and adoption. Now, technology allows for adoption to include embryo donations for adoption purposes. This article makes a distinction, however, between human embryo adoption and human embryo donations. It is pointed out that embryos are not human life, in many jurisdictions and the donation/adoption process is handled differently in each state.[10]

Analysis of this Concept

This article raises the issue of custody of embryos. There are times when people, some individuals and some couples, preserve embryos for future “use”. Does this imply ownership or custody? People have custody of children but some may argue that people own embryos. In the age of medical technological advancements, the world may need to take a closer look at how this concept is conceived. Babies can be born through alternative means as compared to the natural way.

The article touches on personal disposition of embryos and states there is “little actual precedent or other legal guidance”[11] on the issue. Court rulings on human embryo custody tend to be based more heavily on the biological parties’ side than not. In addition, there is the idea of commercial uses for embryos. Embryo storage facilities are under contract with the biological holders of the embryos that includes their right to dispose of the embryos after a certain period of time, if they are not used. However, this opens up the possibility of liability on many levels.[12]  With this being so, does that not suggest that embryos are seen as property?  ART is a growing business and business is commercial, so whether or not an embryo is property is open to further discussion, which is arguably a matter of public policy and determining what is wrong or right in this situation, particularly as it concerns disparities in embryo adoption.

Disparities Associated with Adoption and Embryo Donation

In the article by H. Widdows and F. MacCallum titled, “Disparities in parenting criteria: An exploration of the issues, focusing on adoption and embryo donation”, parent selection procedures regarding embryo donation and the disparities associated with it are examined. This includes taking a look at the intentions of the parents or holders of the embryos, the gestational relationships, and technological aspects.[13]

The subject of embryo donation brings to light the criteria sounding the possibility of a couple adopting an embryo. There is a selection process that includes factors such as age, gender, marital status and occupation, as well as personality traits and family background. The article suggests there are some disparities when considering such factors. A question might be raised as to whether or not these factors should be considered, when the objective is for the person to adopt an embryo so that they can have the child they might not otherwise get to have. Some would argue this is necessary to and “essential to protect the best interests of the child; anything less is considered irresponsible and negligent.”[14] The idea here is that the future child’s interest should be weighed heavily above the selfish interests of the people just wanting to have a baby.

However, the article states that some argue that, “the primary factor of parent selection in embryo donation is medical.” Which means the selection criteria are more focused on whether the mother or a couple are stable medically, more so if they are stable socially, economically or financially.On the other hand, others argue that the social, emotional, and economic status of the would-be parents is important and relative to the future child’s well-being and should be considered in the selection criteria for adopting an embryo[15].

Analysis of this Concept

This concept certainly means the selection decision for adopting an embryo to develop into a future child is not just for medical reasons, but this process also involves the wishes of the future parents. As to the reasons there are some disparities in the selection process, it seems that the intentions of the parent(s), their gestational relationship, and the pursuit of technological processes all weigh in on this, as mentioned[16].

Taking a look at each, first consider parent intentionality. The question arises of What is the intention of the parents regarding the pregnancy? This means what will the person or persons involved get out of creating this pregnancy? For example, maybe a couple is unable to conceive for medical reasons and decide to adopt an embryo, but they want to use a surrogate to carry and deliver the baby at term. The article points out an interesting outcome from a case such as this. The couple who initiated the process is seen as the cause of the pregnancy, so the surrogate would not have the rights of a legal parent[17]. It is important to note, that the genetic mother is the surrogate mother in this case, but the adoptive parents still have the rights over the surrogate. Some would argue against this, as the birth mother is the legal mother in some countries.

This leads to the second point of this concept, which is the gestational relationship.In this case, at least one parent has a biological link to the embryo being donated. With this, it is interesting to note that the donation parent or parents have the legal rights until these rights are transferred at the birth of the child. This has an emotional attachment to it for the mother, whether she is a surrogate or is carrying a donated embryo to term. This is why the gestational relationship is important, because it determines emotional attachments, which may have a bearing on legal, social and practical issues[18].

The third point of the concept of disparities associated with embryo adoption is the technological aspect, which deals with scientific progress. The article points to the significance of the growth of technology in this day and age. This includes new technology that allows for the combining of in vitro fertilization and embryo donation. This is significant because it is another way to offer those who are childless a means to have a child. The difference is, unlike adoption, embryo donation is a medical procedure that causes social factors to be considered, as it directly affects the lives of people, especially that of an unborn child. This is why the criteria for determining parent-worthiness are not the same for traditional adoption and adopting an embryo. To this end, “the criteria for parenting need to be reassessed in a transparent manner to achieve consistency and proportionality in order to meet the requirements of justice and equity.”[19]

Conclusion

This literature review has brought to light the focus of three articles relevant to how embryos are determined to be suitable for adoption. The question that is in debate is whether or not embryos have the potential for human life, and if so, what rights do they have. This means that more attention must be paid to whether or not unwanted embryos are disposed of, acquired or distributed. With this, it is important to note how disparities are associated with embryo adoption and donation.

Bibliography

Murphy, T. F. “Adoption first? The disposition of human embryos.” Journal of Medical Ethics 40, no. 6 (2014): 392-395.

Reich, J. B. “Acquiring, Distributing, and Disposing of Potential Human Life: The Current Status of Human Embryos Beyond Chicanery II.” Journal of Management Policy and Practice 14, no. 3 (2013): 11-17.

Widdows, H., and F. MacCallum. “Disparities in parenting criteria: An exploration of the issues, focusing on adoption and embryo donation.” Journal of Medical Ethics 28, no. 3 (2002): 139.

[1]Murphy, T. F. “Adoption first? The disposition of human embryos.” Journal of Medical Ethics 40, no. 6 (2014): 392-395.

[2](Murphy 2014)

[3](Murphy 2014)

[4](Murphy 2014, 393-394)

[5](Murphy 2014)

[6](Murphy 2014, 393)

[7](Murphy 2014)

[8](Murphy 2014, 394)

[9]Reich, J. B. “Acquiring, Distributing, and Disposing of Potential Human Life: The Current Status of Human Embryos Beyond Chicanery II.” Journal of Management Policy and Practice 14, no. 3 (2013), 11.

(Reich 2013, 11)

[10](Reich 2013)

[11](Reich 2013, 13)

[12](Reich 2013)

[13]Widdows, H., and F. MacCallum. “Disparities in parenting criteria: An exploration of the issues, focusing on adoption and embryo donation.” Journal of Medical Ethics 28, no. 3 (2002).

[14](Widdows and MacCallum 2002, 139)

[15](Widdows and MacCallum 2002)

[16](Widdows and MacCallum 2002)

[17](Widdows and MacCallum 2002)

[18](Widdows and MacCallum 2002)

[19](Widdows and MacCallum 2002, 142)