Don't Freeze Anything

Time's cover story last week was on the resurgence of stem-cell research now that Barack Obama is president (he will most likely expand the federal use of money to study embryonic stem-cells). It's a blatantly banal, immoral take on what steps we should take to save and improve life. That step, of course, is to harvest and kill embryos (i.e. humans) in order to extract their stem cells. Read it if you're looking for a good slap across the face.

Well, they focus the article on Dr. Douglas Melton, who has been one of the main researchers and proponents of embryonic stem-cell use. Most of his story is uninteresting. But one section stood out to me. It reads:

"When (Melton's) class discussed the morality of embryonic-stem-cell research, Melton invited Richard Doerflinger of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops to present arguments against the field. Melton asked Doerflinger if he considered a day-old embryo and a 6-year-old to be moral equivalents; when Doerflinger responded yes, Melton countered by asking why society accepts the freezing of embryos but not the freezing of 6-year-olds."

I had never heard that argument before. And it poses a serious, logical problem to the pro-life position. The pragmatic retort should be, "Freezing a six-year-old would kill the six-year-old" (thanks J). However, the rebuttal to that would be that we are not discussing what the case is now, but what the case could hypothetically be. That is, what if someone were to develop technology that allowed you to freeze six-year-olds and not kill them? Two different questions we must deal with:

1. Is there ever a good (i.e. moral/ethical) reason to freeze a six-year-old? Part of the problem with this question is not knowing how this ability could affect the practice of medicine. That is, could disease or injury be ameliorated by the ability to freeze a human? There is no way to know. But, thankfully, that is the wrong question. Our question must parallel the original problem: the freezing of embryos. The reason you freeze an embryo is to keep it alive until you are ready to use it. So our question then becomes, is it ever right to freeze a six-year-old because you do not need him/her at the moment but will unfreeze him/her when he/she is needed? That is patently ludicrous. Accordingly, I see no good reason for freezing a six-year-old.

2. Is there ever a good reason to freeze an embryo? Some who are pro-life blindly accept every aspect of in vitro fertilization (IVF). In truth, some practices in the process of IVF end the lives of babies. The IVF process involves fertilizing eggs and then implanting a specific number of those eggs. However, (1) much of the time there are a number of fertilized eggs (embryos) that are unused and are consequently discarded, and/or (2) the eggs not used are frozen. The problem with the first issue is obvious. Discarding embryos is immoral. However, the problem with the second issue is more complicated. It is true that embryos can survive freezing, but not indefinitely. So parents who have decided to go down the IVF road must have those frozen embryos implanted before they die. But even then, the survival rate when unfreezing embryos is only 50% percent. I don’t like those odds, even when faced with the prospect of not having my own children. What you are saying by freezing embryos is that your need for a child trumps the good possibility that you will inadvertently end the lives of some babies.

But let's not be hasty. I think that if you implant all the eggs up front—if you don’t discard or freeze any—that is morally acceptable. James Dobson writes:

I feel that in vitro fertilization is less problematic when the donors are husband and wife—IF all the fertilized eggs are inserted into the uterus (i.e., no ova are wasted or disposed of after fertilization and no selection process by doctors or parents occurs.) As the woman's body then accepts one (or more) eggs and rejects the others, the process is left in God's hands and seems to violate no moral principles.

So back to the challenge of Dr. Melton. I think that his supposition, that society accepts the freezing of embryos, should now also be considered immoral. Or, let’s just not freeze anything.