Artificial Insemination 4

Fernando P. Andrada II, PTRP, RN May 13, 2009 BIOETHICS ARTIFICIAL INSEMINATION A. Historical Milleu of the development of the bioethical output The reproductive revolution is upon us. The past half-century has memorisen the development of reproductive technologies previous generations could non even imagine. The term reproductive technology refers to various medical uses that be designed to alleviate infertility, or the inability of a couple to build up a barbarian of their get.These include artificial insemination, in vitro fecundation (or test-tube babies), and trans stake m early(a)hood. These technologies contr symbolise radically expanded for plentiful control over the biological process, and induce been designed both to prevent and to achieve successful pregnancy. When successful, these technologies be the miracle of intent for couples who hand often spent years trying to dupe a babe, and who take hold exhausted all former(a) avenues for conceiving a boor of their own.We are so often amazed how science and medicine excite brought clement reproduction to new heights. It is non uncommon for us to listen news approximately a m early(a) bad birth to six-fold babies, national geographic and discovery channels orienting the process of human race reproduction in a laboratory, and the likes, that leave us in fearfulness Nakakabilib, and galing naman is what we often range . But should we accept these technologies as it is. What we often see is already the end of a way of demeanor. Have we dared assessing the chasteity of such(prenominal) means?While this new reproductive technologies cave in gigantic hope to uninspired couples and make some(prenominal) new reproductive arrangements possible, they as well raise m each difficult and complex moral issues and questions. What is the morality of these procedures? What does it mean to separate belief from the do of sexual union? To whom should these technologies be made availa ble? What is the moral status of the fertilized embryos? Those who dismiss these questions as irrelevant or inconsequential show disrespect for human high-handedness and human flavor. B. Presentation of the bioethical issue and other related ideas/ issueDefinition and Types of sentimental Insemination conventionalised Insemination refers to an assisted regularity of reproduction in which a mans cum is deposited into the muliebritys reproductive tr human action by means of the design of instruments to bring about invention unattained or unattainable by natural fertile intercourse. ii basic types of A. I. 1. homologic insemination/ AIH semen is reigned from the preserve a. 2 methods employed i. Homologous artificial insemination a technique used to facilitate human institution through the transfer into a womans vagina of the sperm antecedently extracted from her conserve ii.Homologous in vitro fertilization (IVF) and embryo transfer(ET) a technique used to facilit ate human conception through in vitro fertilization of the generative cells (sperm and ovum) of couple followed by transfer of the newly conceived embryo into the wifes uterus for gestation. b. plea for AIH i. Husbands impotence ii. anatomical reference defects of husbands urethra iii. Oligospermia deficient sperm count iv. Some types of spinal anaesthesia injury, and certain physical and psychological problems that hinder normal intercourse. v.Husbands with previous vasectomy for contraceptive purposes who decides to have a youngster using his stored semen vi. Physiological rampart in the venereal apparatus in virtue of which sperm cannot the ovum in the oviduct 2. heterological Insemination /AID a technique in which the semen is acquired from a donor other than the husband a. 2 methods i. Heterologous artificial insemination obtain human conception through the transfer into the genital tracts of the wife of a sperm previously extracted from a donor other than the husband. ii.Heterologous IVF and ET a technique used to obtain human conception through in vitro fertilization of the generative cells (sperm and ovum) taken from at to the lowest degree unrivalled donor other that the both spouses in married couple b. Justification for AID i. Husband is sterile ii. Husband carrier of a transmittable disease iii. Wifes oocytes are high-risk or too a carrier of a hereditary dse. The Issues 1. Is it morally permissible to manifold away(p) marriage? 2. Is it morally permissible to separate conception from the act of sexual union? 3. Is it morally permissible to allow fertilization exterior the womb? 4.Is it morally permissible to allow a couple to use AI as justification for childlessness? C. Application of Ethical Theories a. Pro-ideas bear oning Artificial Insemination Situational ethics (Fletcher 1954) endorses AI as our justifiedly to overcome childlessness. married Fidelity is to a greater extent than a legal requirement or a sexual monopo ly. It is preferably a personal agreement nourished by love for from each mavin other which is fulfilled in ensuring that a child born into this humans by whatever means. Under Utilitarianism, AIH and AID may promote more(prenominal) good than harm, more happiness than unhappiness, more pleasure than pain for a childless couple.The eugenic justification of AIH (i. e. to prevent the birth of potentially regretful child, thus improving the human race) is in conjunction with the principle of great happiness for the greatest number. To minimize suffering instead of aggravating it seems to be the rationale in AIH. For a moral pragmatist, AI is the most interoperable, beneficial, and usable technique to be undertaken by spouses who are beset with the problems of impotence, hereditary disorders, defective genes, and anatomical defects. The decision however moldiness be optional and volitional. What is practical and workable to one individual may not be the carapace to another.It s practicality must be gauged on a case to case basis. b. Anti- ideas regarding Artificial Insemination According to Natural law Ethics, artificial insemination, whether it is within the bounds of marriage or not, is come acrossed immoral. AI is immoral within marriage. More so, if when it is done exterior marriage. Worst is when AI is done by a donor. Natural ethicians consider AI to be immoral, insofar as the AI child is not the fruit of the conjugal act as an expression of personal love. fecundation is more than a sheer union of to germs, the sperm and egg, which can be brought about artificially.And that the conjugal act which is planned and willed by nature take a personal cooperation of both spouses who are joined together in marriage. In marriage, AI by a donor is substantially an extramarital procedure. The element of adultery technically resides in the use and placement of semen into the body of a woman from a man who is not her licitly wedded husband. This procedure is detrimental to the unitive retention of marriage. Only marriage partners have mutual rights over their bodies for the upbringing of a new keep, and these rights are exclusive, non-transferable and inalienable.Moreover, the husband has neither a moral nor a legal right to give anyone permission to inseminate his wife. Nature imposes on whoever gives life to an infant the job of its preservation and education. impotence and sterility are in like manner not excusable reasons for the moral justification of artificial insemination. Morally, no amount of good end and surrounding occurrence however great can make an objectively evil act good. The end does not justify the means. D. Personal inspection on Artificial Insemination The Churchs teachings are reflected in my abide on this bioethical issue of Human Artificial Insemination (A.I. ). While you may say that choosing it is a convenient way for me to justify my stand, because we know that using these teachings hush up ma ny of other reasons. On the contrary, I used this as my croak in deciding on difficult moral issues because I intrust that these teachings truly demonstrate great reverence for life. Procreation must be within the bounds of marriage. And training is the fruit of a conjugal act which is an act of love in which two people are united in one flesh. It is from this act which expresses it that human procreation is meant to result.This is paragons design for human procreation. Marital love is essential to human procreation and thus they are inseparable. It is not just an act by which two life germs are united. In artificial insemination procreation is separated from this conjugal act and thus it what makes A. I. morally not permissible even within marriage. Separating human procreation from conjugal love and reducing it to the union of two germ cells also depersonalizes and dehumanizes it. Artificial insemination by a donor is more immoral than homological insemination.So-called don or insemination was not considered morally acceptable since it involved an onslaught of the marriage bond. Techniques that use eggs or sperm from someone outside the married couple are unacceptable as they do not respect the marriage bond and also deny the child the right to be born of a mother and father known to him. Impotency and sterility are also not excusable reasons for the moral justification of artificial insemination. Morally, no amount of good intention and surrounding circumstance however great can make an objectively evil act good.The end does not justify the means. The desire for a child a completely legitimate desire of the married people does not essay that artificial insemination is legitimate because it would satisfy such a desire . A defect of nature may be corrected. But, if the defect is beyond the scuttle of correction as it is irreversible, nothing can be done however to just leave it to its own course. Spouses who find themselves in this situation must not forget that even when procreation is not possible, conjugal life does not for this reason lose its value.It can be the occasion for other important services to the life of people, for example adoption, various forms of educational work, and economic aid to other families and to poor handicapped children. During the process of in vitro fertilization, because of a great number of failures, women seeking pregnancy by this means receive seven-fold embryos to ensure its occurrence. Some of these embryos maybe found weaker or with defects are fling or simply aborted in a process called pregnancy reduction. much(prenominal) process is plain and simple abortion and therefore has no regard whatsoever on the importance of life.Hence this is definitely morally unacceptable. To summarize, Artificial Insemination is immoral on the following grounds 1. Arbitrary exclusion of the Marital Act from Procreation the naturally devised means of transmitting life is no other than the marital ac t. Now, by AI, the said act is deliberately excluded from procreation and replaced with a medical means ,that is, the insertion of a thin and bonkers catheter containing sperm into the wifes reproductive tract a procedure enormously contrary to nature. . Usurpation of Gods Creative king of Authorship over Life by its very procedure AI usurps Gods authorship over life through the traffic of artificially concocted means other than His designed way of transmitting life. It is also an expression of mans abusive and manipulative act of dismission beyond the border of his power of stewardship by , more or less, assumptive that which exclusively belongs to God the power of authorship over life. 3.Against Human high-handedness the claim of a right to the babys life implies that the child is an object to own and to possess which reduces him/her to a mere biological property over which one has right thereby violating his/her human dignity, value, and worth. E. Summary and result I have nothing against the advances in reproductive technology. Technologies can very assist nature, or even supply for the deficiencies of nature, and when used for these purposes, they can be commendable or else than objectionable. It is not because technologies are artificial that they are condemned. It is provided when they go contrary to moral requirements.In examining technologies for their morality, our interest is not whether they are natural or artificial, but whether they are in violation of Gods design for procreation. The Church recognizes the legitimacy of the desire for a child and understands the suffering of couples struggling with problems of fertility. Such a desire, however, should not override the dignity of every human life to the point of absolute supremacy. The desire for a child cannot justify the production of offspring, just as the desire not to have a child cannot justify the abandonment or final stage of a child once he or she has been conceived. A chil d is not something owed to one, but is a gift (No. 2378). It is not a mere piece of property, and, likewise, there is no right to a child. Points that provide a useful orientation in the midst of constant scientific developments. In these cases, there need be no intention of intrauterine supervise (although there could be) with a view of abortion should the child conceived suffer from any abnormality. Nor need there be, in these cases, the use of immoral means (masturbation) to obtain the husbands sperm, since it can be retrieved in morally acceptable ways.In these cases there is, apparently, only the intent to help a couple, despite their physical fatuity (either by reason of the husbands low sperm production or the wifes obturate Fallopian tubes) to have a child with whom they ardently desire to share life and to whom they are willing to give a home. Do not such couples have a right to have a child of their own? Why, many people reasonably ask, is it morally badindeed a sin, a n offense against God Himselfto make use of artificial insemination by the husband and homologous in vitro fertilization in such cases?Is not the Churchs position here too rigid, too insensitive to the agonizing plight of involuntarily childless couples who are seeking, by making good use of upstart technologies, to realize one of the goods of marriage? Do not married couples in this situation have a right to make use of these methods so that they can have a child of their own? It is definitely real that married men and women have rights (and responsibilities) that nonmarried men and women do not have.They have the right, first of all, to engage in the marital act, that is not simple a genital act between two persons who happen to be married but is an act of interpersonal communion in which they give themselves to one another as husband and wife. In direct contrast to genital sex between an unmarried man and woman which merely joins two individuals who are in principle replaceable , substitutable, disposable, the marital act unites two persons who have made one another absolutely irreplaceable and nonsubstitutable by giving themselves to one another in marriage.In addition, husbands and wives, by giving themselves to one another in marriage, have capacitated themselves, as St. Augustine put it, to receive life lovingly, to nourish it humanely, and to educate it religiously, i. e. , in the love and service of God (cf. De genesi ad literam, 9. 7 PL 34397). Unmarried men and women to the contrary have not so capacitated themselves. God, in short, wills that human life be given in the marital embrace of husbands and wives not through the random copulation of fornicators and adulterers. picpic pic Husbands and wives, thus, have a right to the marital act and to care for life conceived through this act, but they do not have a right to a child. A child is not a thing to which husbands and wives have a right. It is not a product that, by its nature, is necessarily in ferior to its producers, rather a child, like its parents. And this is the moral problem with the laboratory generation of human life, including artificial insemination by the husband and the simple case of in vitro fertilization.When a child comes to be in and through the marital act, it is not a product of their act but is a gift supervening on and giving permanent embodiment to the marital act itself (cf. Catholic Bishops of England and Wales Committee on Bioethical Issues, In Vitro Fertilization Morality and Public Policy London Catholic study Services, 1983, n. 23). When human life comes to be through the marital act, we say kinda properly that the spouses are begetting or procreating, they are not making anything. The life they receive is begotten, not made.