Catholic Exchange

Another IVF Tragedy from our “Entitlement Culture”

In Japan, a woman underwent IVF and was implanted, seemingly a happy pregnancy. Then, things proved to be terribly wrong. From the story :

A Japanese woman was likely impregnated with the fertilized egg of another woman by accident during an in vitro procedure last year, hospital officials said Thursday. The woman, who is in her 20s, aborted the pregnancy when she was told of the potential mix-up at the government-run hospital in Kagawa prefecture, about 330 miles (530 kilometers) southwest of Tokyo. She is now suing the local government for 20 million yen ($222,000), according to news reports.

Hospital officials apologized for the mistake at a news conference Thursday. “She was very happy after undergoing such a difficult procedure and becoming pregnant, but unfortunately a mistake had been made,” said Yuzo Matsumoto, director of the Kagawa Prefectural Central Hospital.

This is an example of the hedonism I have been warning against in discussing the coup de culture. People believe they have the right to obtain whatever they want, however they want it, and then reject it if they are not fully pleased. In this case, the woman wanted a baby. But she was implanted with a baby she did not want so she had it destroyed in utero. And then she sues.

Another woman may want a baby and use a sister’s, or even a stranger’s, egg in the fertilization process, happy to carry a baby that is not hers biologically, but is in love. But the child’s mother is really her aunt, and perhaps even a stranger. We have seen the potential cost of such “novel” arrangements in the desperate yearning of the adopted to find their natural parents.

Another woman has five embryos implanted and three destroyed through “selective reduction,” thrilled to have “twins,” when she really had two of five quintuplets, and the two living babies will eventually know that they are only in life through the luck of where the abortionist’s tools happened to land.

Another want-to-be mother hires a poor woman to be her substitute womb because she has health problems, or doesn’t want stretch marks or to have her career track affected by the pregnancy, and then contractually forces the woman to give up a child she gestated and bonded with for 9 months — potentially impacting the child as well as the birth mother since mother/child bonding begins before birth. Another couple go through IVF, have their embryos tested, and toss out those who might get adult onset cancer, for all we know destroying the person who might have found cancer’s cure.

None of us is allowed to comment about any of this because the rules of the modern age tell us we may never moralize about or judge a woman’s “reproductive choices.” But then another woman upsets that particular applecart by having 8 children, added to 6 she already has, all through IVF. Finally the choice-is-everything crowd gets upset about something (other than the loathed pro lifers.) But by what right? They have profoundly undermined the power of society to expect people to adhere to reasonable norms.

As for me, I think it is all upsetting, and — yes I will say it — the field increasingly epitomizes a society that thinks we are all entitled to everything we want, regardless of the moral costs in the lives harmed or sacrificed in the obtaining. But wisdom tells us that sometimes we have to live within limits and make do as best we can. That hurts individuals, and we should all be there to empathize and help ease the pain. But it also helps build a healthier society. It is a forgotten lesson that is costing us dearly.

Comments

5 responses to “Another IVF Tragedy from our “Entitlement Culture””

  1. Claire Avatar
    Claire

    “We have seen the potential cost of such “novel” arrangements in the desperate yearning of the adopted to find their natural parents.”

    As an adoptive mother, I am very offended by this comment. Are you lumping adoption in with the evils of ART? I certainly hope not, as adoption is very pro-life, in contrast to ART. I might not be my son’s biological mother, but there’s nothing “un-natural” about me as a mother. Furthermore, my son won’t have to search for his BIRTH parents because we keep in regular contact with them and once he turns 18 he will have the right to see them whenever he wants.

    Regarding selective reduction: my neighbors did this, aborting two out of their four babies. Now one of their surviving twins has a most likely fatal rare form of osteosarcoma (cancer rates are higher among IVF babies). So they are going to end up with only one child, when they could have started out with 4. Evil.

  2. elkabrikir Avatar
    elkabrikir

    Evil: I’ll begin where Claire ended. The entire process that has turned human beings into objects used to satiate another’s pride, is evil. Quite naturally the perpetrators have become dehumanized in the process. Therefore, they’re incapable of acknowledging and following the simple and logical principle “you may not do evil, even to attain a good end”. They have become the “Great Deceiver” unto themselves. Evil.

    Also, “Wisdom” tells us that we ALWAYS have to live within limits. Limits apply in the physical world, eg: gravity and in the metaphysical world, eg: morality. Very often the two worlds unite. Therefore, Wisdom tells us we’ll all have to deal with our mortality and the state of our eternal soul.

    Welcome to Lent!

  3. O'Neill Avatar
    O’Neill

    You miss the point being made, of course adoption is a noble and precious gift of love to children who need parents but a surrogate (“want-to-be mother hires a poor woman to be her substitute womb”) is a mother bonded to a child whether she believes she is or not who gives that child away in adoption for no good reason except the notion of helping someone have a baby or monetary gain of some kind.

    This is not the proper reason for adoption- they force pregnancy to satisfy one person’s need to help another’s strange idea that the child will somehow be “more” hers if she mentors this woman through pregnancy. This is not noble adoption but an arrangment of desires that doesn’t take into consideration the needs of the child at all. Adoption can’t be compared to the adoption from a surrogate arrangment. One is loving and the other is simply sinful coming from a misguided understanding of compassion and selfless giving.

    It has been reported on GMA a time ago that some of our soldiers’ wives are making $15,000+ while their husbands are away fighting by becoming surrogate mothers- it is a job, a help to make time past faster and a way to make money at the expense of a child who will one day want to know why their biological mother made $15,000 – they will see themselves as a commodity, a product made to satisfy a demand. Then they will ask: “Was I so unlovable that this woman could sell me? Didn’t she feel something for me? Am I still that unlovable? Will I be able to love my child?” We don’t want these questions for our children and the emotional damage that can be left in the wake of these arrangments. Your adoption situation is completely different and your children will know that two mothers loved enough to do what was best for them.

  4. bambushka Avatar
    bambushka

    Just as ssa has skewed marriage, IVF, egg donation, surrogacy and abortion have skewed adoption. One is within the norms and blessings of natural law; the others are well outside what our Creator had in mind when He created us.

    I wonder if the surrogates receive a 1099 from the people who receive her child. How does the government, who is complicit, I’m sure, keep track of the monetary gain?

    Is the child of a surrogate a goods or service? Does the surrogate charge by the week, month, or poundage. Does she belong to a “labor” union? If this is a service is it taxed? What must the siblings of this child think when their mom gives the baby away? What happens if there is an accident at birth and the child is born with cerebral palsy or is delivered stillborn? Is there a “take-back” policy? Is there a warranty in case the two year old becomes cantankerous?

    These questions seem diabolical and callus, but they fit the deed. How is this any different than selling a kidney? Isn’t it still illegal to sell body parts? Only when it comes to the reproduction of a child do eyes turn the other way and our society says, “Ahhh, no matter what you have exposed your fertility and womb to in the past, you still deserve a newborn child. And the charity of this act is so lucrative that it must be right and legal.

  5. Claire Avatar
    Claire

    O’Neill, I completely agree with you regarding surrogcacy, ART, etc. I just got the impression (perhaps erroneously) that the author was lumping traditional adoption in with these practices, and that’s what I was upset about.

Leave a Reply