More On Embryo Adoption

A reader writes:

I’m one of your blog readers, and I’ve got a dilemma/question.  You recently
posted your thoughts regarding the issue of adopting frozen embryos.  You
pointed out that the Church has not taken a formal stand on the issue as of
yet.  A lively discussion ensued in the combox.  My wife and I had one
lovely daughter using this method.  Since the birth of our daughter, we have
converted from evangelicalism to Catholicism, and want to submit ourselves
to the teachings of the Church in this (and all) matters.  We are
contemplating attempting the procedure again, and have reserved a set of
embryos in preparation. 

My wife has raised a potential moral concern that I
have not seen addressed anywhere.  Part of the transfer process involves
drugs that regulate a woman’s cycle for several months prior to the
transfer, in order to be able to transfer the embryos at the woman’s most
fertile time. 

My wife argues that these drugs are technically a form of
birth control, since they prevent pregnancy until the time of transfer.  She
thus believes that taking these drugs as part of the process would be
illicit. 

I have countered however that even if the doctor would agree to an
unmedicated transfer (unlikely), this might reduce the chances that the
embryos would implant, leading to their demise.  The good that could be done
(providing the best chance for the embryos to live) outweighs any potential
evil from the short period of "birth control". 

Further, since we are
infertile anyway (unfortunately, I am sterile), the fact that she may
receive drugs that would act in a contraceptive manner is moot.  I argue
that the intent of the Church’s ban on birth control is not a problem with
the chemicals themselves, but rather that the Church doesn’t want to inhibit
the potential of conception.  Since we can’t have children anyway, that
isn’t an issue. 

My wife counters that God could work a miracle by curing my
sterility, and we shouldn’t hinder that possibility by even a short period
of possible contraception.  I then counter that she’s being too idealistic .
. . We are meeting with the doctor soon, and need to make a decision.  Would
you care to comment on this issue?

I’ll be happy to provide what insight I can.

First, as you note, the Church has not made a determination of the moral status of frozen embryo adoption and there are orthodox Catholic moralists on both sides of the issue. Until there is an official determination, individuals may pursue their own conscience regarding the morality of the action provided they do not violate other, established principles in the process. This does not mean doing whatever you want, though. It means doing the best to inform your conscience on the matter even in the absence of a Church declaration (e.g., reading arguments for and against the relevant positions, doing a novena if the reading doesn’t convince you one way or the other, etc.)

What you’re asking here is whether there is another established principle–i.e., that contraception is immoral–that would be violated by doing the procedure in the proposed way.

While you are correct that saving the lives of the embryos is a very grave matter, one should not think in terms of this good outweighing the evil of contraception. Contraception is one of those things that is always and intrinsically wrong and is not permissible no matter what the circumstances. It cannot be done as an end in itself, nor can it be done as a means to a good end–even a very good one.

That said, there is the question of whether the use of hormones to regulate your wife’s fertility cycle would constitute contraception in this case.

In the Church’s official documents (starting with Humanae Vitae, though the passage is also quoted in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, number 2370), contraception is defined as:

every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible

From this definition, it would appear that the use of hormones to regulate a woman’s cycle in order to facilitate implantation does not involve contraception.

It is true that, by regulating her cycle, there will be infertile periods, but these periods are not being created in order "to render procreation impossible," which is a sine qua non of contraception. If you’re not trying to render procreation impossible, what you are doing is not contraception. It’s something else.

Such non-contraceptive use of hormones can, however, have a contraceptive effect. This is the case with women who use hormones to treat a medical condition and the hormones simultaneously prevent them from getting pregnant. Such usage is permitted under the law of double-effect as long as the usual conditions for this law are satisfied (e.g., the contraceptive effect is not an end in itself, the contraceptive effect is not a means to the therapeutic end, the condition being treated is serious enough to endure the contraceptive side-effect, there is not a better treatment for the condition). Some debate whether couples should have intercourse during such treatment due to increased possibility of miscarriage, though this is something that the Church has not yet addressed one way or the other.

In your case, the use of hormones to regulate your wife’s cycle in order to achieve pregnancy would not be contraceptive. It would create infertile periods, but these are undesired and the fact that you are infertile renders the question moot. Catholic moral theology would not hold that it is necessary to withhold medical treatment in this area in hope of the miraculous happening any more than it would be necessary in any other area to withhold medical treatment in hope of the miraculous happening.

Some moralists might disagree with elements of the reasoning above but, since the Church has not yet addressed the matters at hand, we are left to try to figure out such matters for ourselves, informing our consciences as best we can by reading different perspectives on the matter, weighing the arguments they use, entrusting the matter to God in prayer, and then following our best determination.

Hope this helps!

20

 

Author: Jimmy Akin

Jimmy was born in Texas, grew up nominally Protestant, but at age 20 experienced a profound conversion to Christ. Planning on becoming a Protestant seminary professor, he started an intensive study of the Bible. But the more he immersed himself in Scripture the more he found to support the Catholic faith, and in 1992 he entered the Catholic Church. His conversion story, "A Triumph and a Tragedy," is published in Surprised by Truth. Besides being an author, Jimmy is the Senior Apologist at Catholic Answers, a contributing editor to Catholic Answers Magazine, and a weekly guest on "Catholic Answers Live."

13 thoughts on “More On Embryo Adoption”

  1. Jimmy,
    I would like to thank you, Jimmy, for always providing such wonderfully thought-out replies to people’s inquiries into the moral and social dilemmas they face. We should count ourselves lucky that there are people like you out there who take the time to crank these replies out when folks really seem to need them. (And for letting the rest of us read your replies.)
    My prayers for you and for that family.

  2. Another avenue for this couple to consider if they continue to be uncomfortable with the contraceptive side-effects of the drugs is abstinence. If they were to abstain from sex while she was taking the drugs it would completely clear up any gray areas regarding contraception.

  3. Jimmy,
    I want to echo Jason’s comments. I continue to check your blog, not for the Sci-Fi and sundry elements(though I enjoy those, too), but for your always insightful, sincere answers to questions such as the current topic.
    I don’t know how I came across your website, but I am certainly glad to have found it. (I think that it was through Fr. Bryce Sibley’s now-defunct A Saintly Salmagundi.)
    God has always seemed to find a way to steer me appropriately in the Faith; and I have no doubt that you are part of his plan for me and many, many others.
    I pray for you, for your correspondents, and for everyone at Catholic Answers.

  4. By the way, do we know that the contraceptive effect of the drugs is not a means to this therapeutic end?
    Maybe they should ask the doctor if the fact that the drugs prevent pregnancy is one of the reasons for taking the drugs, or if it is completely irrelevant. It sounds from the post like it may be irrelevant, but that was not explicitly stated.
    But Ken is right: abstinence would clear any moral dilemma. Though that can be a big decision too. And Jimmy did say that “the fact that you are infertile renders the question moot.”

  5. I know of a couple who have thirty frozen embryos (conceived “in vitro” from their own ova and sperm). The woman is unable a pregnancy to carry to term. They are contracting with a surrogate mother.
    Sad.
    Horrendous.
    Frightening.

  6. Trust in God. Listen to your wife.Prayers and sacrifices. Have you ever thought about adoption(real one)?
    God bless,

  7. My mostly uneducated response:
    I think a “set” of embryos means that they implant more than one just to increase the odds that at least one will make it. But I think that pro-life people don’t ever implant more than they are willing to carry (2 or 3) in hopes that they all live.

  8. Hoping this isn’t a Rule 20 violation….
    Would another option for this couple be to track the woman’s cycle by using the Sympto-Thermal method of NFP? It’s possibly something their doctor has not heard of, and therefore not considered. Then all questions would be covered.

  9. I second momof6’s comment. There are three independent methods of tracking a woman’s fertility and determining her peak fertile time. Most doctors are horribly ignorant of NFP and a woman’s cycle. This doctor may not have heard about it nor understand how it works. It would completely clear up any confusion regarding the morality of the hormones and would probably allow the couple in question to know even more accurately when the wife’s fertility is at the peak (the doctor would be making an educated guess based on when her period comes if the hormones are used, he wouldn’t know for sure).

  10. CaeliDS –
    Regarding what is meant by a set – This may or may not be the technical term, but when the embryos are frozen, they are typically frozen in “batches” of 3 – 5. When transfered, the entire group is thawed, and those that survive are transfered into the womb of the adopting mom.
    Tim

  11. Thank you, Tim, but that seems to underscore the concern I related on another posting about the morality of such an implantation. Thawing the embryos seems to deliberately bring about the death of at least some of the embryos. Although the goal (implanting the surviving embryos) is good in itself, the means seem problematic to me.

  12. Thawing the embryos seems to deliberately bring about the death of at least some of the embryos. Although the goal (implanting the surviving embryos) is good in itself, the means seem problematic to me.
    1. It is possible that all of them will survive. There was another combo boxes where a couple told how the clinic had thawed four, expecting one or two, but they all had, how many did they want?
    2. It is an alternative to a certainly lethal situation. It might, for instance, be morally obligatory to throw babies from a burning building, if there was a chance they would survive the fall and no other chance of a rescue.

Comments are closed.