Embryo harvesting and freezing is regarded as an ethical dilemma which is morally intolerable. Karen Capato set aside sperms for in-vitro fertilization posthumous and raised twins (Supreme Court, 2011).Technology was used after a spouse death to create a life posthumous. Genes were manipulated, and this interrupted the natural process of life as ordained by God. Embryonic harvesting and freezing, or posthumous manipulation should not be performed. Research provides technological advancement that takes ethics into a new level,and this can be bothersome. Legal issues also arise from such a dilemma especially in the case of Capato when the Supreme Court“struggled to align modern reproductive techniques to a federal law written in 1939” (Hans&Yelland, 2013). In order to know the views of the people on the embryo harvesting and freezing, four individuals were interviewed by my CLC group:a spiritual leader,a hospital administrator, a friend and health care colleague. The interview was conducted in person,and the following were their philosophies and worldviewsabout posthumous manipulation.

A hospital administrator (Mark) is the manager of the surgery room and has a nursing experience of about fifteen years. Mark practices Orthodox Christianity and his worldview about embryo harvesting and freezing for implantation in later years is received with opposition. Mark believes that this act is morally and ethically wrong and that all things that happen in this life occur according to the plan of God. In his position, embryos are regarded as human and apprehension is communicated upon the damaging of unused embryos. He believed that embryo harvesting and freezing is an intentional killing of an individual.

Joy, a friend, was a very resourceful respondent to the group. Upon interviewing her, she said that, although posthumous manipulation was regarded as a taboo, and unethically wrong by a majority, it was acceptable. Rather than having a child with another man after the death of her husband, the best thing was to preserve embryos for future implantation. She provided an example of a woman whose husband was hospitalized for a long time suffering from cancer, and she feared that the man could become sterile, as a result of the medical treatment. They could not have a child biologically since the man was very sick. Eggs were drawn from his wife. The man deposited semen in a sperm bank and after induced fertilization occurred, and his wife was implanted, she gave birth to a son. Based on her example, joy believed that embryo harvesting and freezing was a way of progressing life and that according to her; it was morally and socially acceptable.

The third interviewee was Pastor Robert, the senior pastor of the Presbyterian Church in Los Angeles. Robert asserted that God ordains life and death, and that no human knowledge should interfere with the process of creation. He also asserted that the act was a controversial issue among Christians. To prove his point, he quoted the bible in psalm 139: 13, 15 which says:”You made all the delicate, inner parts of my body and knit me together in my mother’s womb….You watched me as I was being formed in utter seclusion; as I was woven together in the dark of the womb.” According to Robert, the act of harvesting eggs came with moral and ethical implications. Couples harvest more eggs than they plan to use and that some of the embryo’s end up beingdestroyed. The bible does not permit the destruction of innocent life. This is regarded as murder. He finished by saying that couples should wait upon the Lord and not believe in technology, by stating a bible verse that says “Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will” (Romans 12:2: New International Version).

The last person to be interviewed was one of our nursing colleagues, Rodriguez, who stated that there was nothing wrong in creating a life using technology and that this was helpful in many circumstances, where a couple was unable to conceive biologically. She supported embryo harvesting and freezing by noting that the society acknowledges and respects the rights of individuals to make reproductive choices, and that every parent desires to have their own child either naturally, or through posthumous manipulation.

Similarities/differences of the interview responses:

Embryo harvesting and freezing is controversial. Some people support it,while others condemn it as ethically and morally wrong. The hospital administrator, though a specialist in the medical field, condemned the act and saw it as a way of intentionally killing a human beingsincesuch sperms are taken and stored before a person is dead(Orr1&Siegler, 2002). His position parallels that of the spiritual leader who condemned the act as ungodly and unbiblical. People should wait for God’s perfect will, and they should not be conventional to the knowledge of the world. He also condemned that act as an act of destroying innocent lives since many of the frozen sperms are not used and thereafter destroyed. Contrary to mark and Pastor Robert, Joy, a friend and Rodriquez, a nursing colleague had different views. They supported the act and saw it as a way of helping sick and sterile couples acquire children just like other healthy and normal couples. According to them, the reproductive rights of couples ought to be respected.

My CLC group listened to all of the interviewees and also articulated their position on the ethical dilemma. Different members of the group had different views. But after a serious debate and consideration, the group concluded that the posthumous manipulation was ethically and morally wrong. The act went against the society’s position that children should be born biologically and not through technology. In retrieving eggs and sperms from couples, this makes them a property (Strong, Gingrich & Kutteh, 2000). This is because, once they are stored, the owner has the rights to them and can either sell or transfer them to another person. Posthumous manipulation also goes against God’s plan of creation. God ordains children.He has the power to create life. Furthermore, just like in the case of Karen Capato’s twins,the court does not approve such children to qualify for survivor benefits. Many children born out of posthumous manipulation suffer from such issues. The old law does not recognize children born out of technology, especially when they are deliveredafter the demise of the father(Orr1&Siegler, 2002). The group’s resolution is that the society does not ethically and morally justify such an endeavor and that posthumous semen raises questions about the consent, the respectful handling of the dead body, and the welfare of the future child.

References

Orr1, R. D. & Siegler, M. (2002). Is posthumous semen retrieval ethically permissible?J Med Ethics 2002; 28:299-302 doi:10.1136/jme.28.5.299

Strong, C., Gingrich, J.R. &Kutteh, W.H. (2000). Ethics of sperm retrieval after death or persistent vegetative state. Hum Reprod., 15, 739–745.

Supreme Court, (2011). Ruling on Capato Case: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-159.pdf

Hans, J.D.&Yelland, E.L. (2013). American Attitudes in Context: PosthumousSperm Retrieval and Reproduction. J Clinic Res Bioeth S1: 008. doi: 10.4172/2155-9627. S1-008