It seems that, as a society, we see the need to become more responsible. So we are soon to have a “responsible” divorce law and now we are debating on a law for “responsible” IVF.
The term responsibility derives from the Latin verb respicere, “to gaze at”, “consider”. It implies acknowledgment of the other person. I am responsible towards somebody else.
As regards all techniques concerning the beginning of human life, being responsible means “gazing at” the other human being who comes into existence from the moment of conception. From that very moment, we have the start of a coordinated, continuous and gradual development of human life. This is a fact provided to us by biology. It’s an ideology to state that one can be 100 per cent sure that human life starts at a later stage. On what pretext could such an affirmation hold? In doubt, we should always opt for life. We can’t play with human lives, that’s a fundamental prerequisite of responsibility towards human life.
What about those couples who can’t conceive in a natural way? Are they condemned to unhappiness? Why shouldn’t they make use of existent artificial techniques? These questions constitute a challenge and some might argue that society at large should feel responsible to consider the plight and suffering of those couples and give them a chance by regulating IVF and legalising the freezing of embryos.
First of all, it should be clear that the distinction between ethical and unethical is not equal to natural and artificial. As the Instruction Dignitas Personae of the Congregation of the Doctrine of Faith states, “with regard to the treatment of infertility, new medical techniques must respect three fundamental goods: a) the right to life and to physical integrity of every human being from conception to natural death; b) the unity of marriage, which means reciprocal respect for the right within marriage to become a father or mother only together with the other spouse; c) the specifically human values of sexuality, which require that the procreation of a human person be brought about as the fruit of the conjugal act specific to the love between spouses”. Techniques that act as an aid to the conjugal act and its fertility are thereby permitted whereas techniques that substitute for the conjugal act are to be excluded.
In fact, IVF might not be the only possible solution for couples who have fertility problems. Due to the limited writing space, I just refer to the NaPro Technology developed by the Paul VI Institute Research. Its objective is to go to the roots of the problems of infertility within a couple. A visit to the NaPro Technology website may be quite enriching. Problems should be solved responsibly, that is, in respect of all those involved.
The freezing of embryos should only be permitted for the benefit of the embryo itself. Producing many embryos by IVF to assure success rates for infertile couples is a way of thinking that considers embryos more as numbers than as persons.
Creating a situation of multiple pregnancies is irresponsible. Freezing and halting the process of human life as though the embryo is nothing but a mere product whose life depends on the needs of its “clients” is equally irresponsible. After all, one cannot correct a process that is in itself irresponsible towards human life. The real problem is not the number of embryos but IVF itself. One shouldn’t confuse the symptoms with the root of the problem.
Regulating IVF could, however, be considered as a step forward, notwithstanding the fact that IVF itself is a technique that does not respect the dignity of human life from its conception. It is a step forward to become aware of the absurd consequences of such a treatment and to try to lessen its negative impact. However, if the present situation is analysed through the lens of utilitarianism, this will not lead to responsible solutions but only to measures that are further offensive towards the dignity of human life.
On the other hand, if faced responsibly, taking into account the dignity of the human person from the moment of conception, it will lead to measures that aim to assure at least that the situation does not worsen.
Responsibility also entails taking care of those infertile couples who go through great suffering. Their suffering should be taken into account helping them to consider those techniques and options that do not offend the dignity of another person’s life. Being responsible makes it possible – as Dignitas Personae affirms – for those couples to say yes to life, saying no “to all those practices that result in grave and unjust discrimination against unborn human beings, who have the dignity of a person, created like others in the image of God”.
May we never remove our gaze from the other, especially from the weakest who needs our acceptance and love.