Father Kevin Doran, responding to the debate which took place at the recent hearing of the Commission on Assisted Reproduction in Dublin Castle, outlines the ethical and theological misgivings of the Catholic Church and explains why it is opposed to the procedure.
Earlier this month, as part of the process of preparing its recommendations, the Commission on Assisted Human Reproduction (CAHR) held a public conference at Dublin Castle. The Irish Catholic Bishops Conference has now published the written submission which it made to the commission in December 2001.
There was substantial agreement at Dublin Castle that assisted human reproduction needed to be regulated and that the fundamental issue in arriving at an ethical or legal policy in this regard is the status of the human embryo. This, however, is where the agreement ended.
Mary Warnock, who chaired the Committee on Human Embryology in Britain, said that in her view, the status of the embryo had nothing to do with fact. This is consistent with the position she took in a 1983 article in the Philosophical Quarterly, where she wrote: "If a foetus does not suffer pain, what does it matter whether it is a person or not?"
She has consistently taken the view that decisions about how we might use a spare embryo depend on the feelings of the parents rather than on rational argument. The logic of this position, of course, is that all our rights as human beings depend on how others feel about us.
Former Attorney General John Rogers framed the question about the status of the embryo in legal terms.
He argued that the early embryo would most likely not be afforded any protection under the Constitution because it would be regarded by the Supreme Court as "genetic material" and not as a human being having personal rights.
He argued that the term "unborn" in the Constitution does not include embryos, because they only become capable of being born after they have implanted in the womb. He omitted to mention that, among the obstacles to successful implantation in embryos conceived by assisted reproductive therapy, the first and most destructive is the decision not to transfer the embryo to the uterus.
In its submission to the commission in December 2001, the Irish Episcopal Conference takes a position which is fundamentally at odds with that expressed by Warnock and Rogers. The bishops argue that decisions about how an embryo ought to be treated flow from what an embryo is. They point out that a human embryo is the new organism which comes into existence at fertilisation.
"This organism is not simply a collection of cells, but a genetically-distinct human individual, which is oriented towards further development."
The bishops acknowledge that research on human embryos is frequently motivated by the desire to respond to the problem of infertility or to discover and treat the causes of genetic abnormality. They point out, however, that such possible benefit to humanity does not justify the destructive consequences for the embryo itself of such research.
"The human embryo must, however, be regarded as a subject and not an object. It is an end in itself, and not a means to an end. The fundamental issue at stake is that of respect for human life."
Many members of the panel acknowledged that assisted human reproduction would inevitably involve the destruction of embryos. Prof John Bonnar argued from the floor that it is possible to do IVF without destroying embryos. Certainly, the most recent Guide to Conduct issued by the Medical Council prohibits the generation or storage of embryos for research purposes. It requires that any fertilised ovum should be used for normal implantation.
The fact remains that most if not all assisted human reproduction clinics in Ireland generate more embryos than can be used in one treatment cycle. Once these surplus embryos are frozen, the problem immediately arises as to how long they can be stored and what will happen to them when that "shelf-life" has elapsed?
Prof Ken Daniels from New Zealand made a case for concentrating on the family rather than just on the embryo. What people wanted from assisted human reproduction, he said, was not just a baby, but a family.
In the course of the discussion on the paper presented by Prof Daniels, Fidelma Fitzpatrick made an impassioned plea that her child - and other children conceived through assisted reproduction - should not be treated any differently from other children.
Pope John Paul made much the same point when the first IVF baby, Louise Browne, was born in 1998. He said that notwithstanding the Church's serious concerns about the manner in which Louise had been conceived, he wished to welcome her into the human family and to affirm her dignity as a person.
IT IS often forgotten, however, that large numbers of embryos (often 11 or 12) are generated in any one treatment cycle and that all these embryos are part of the same family.
The logic of Ms Fitzpatrick's position is that there is no basis for making any distinction between them. Yet, in most environments in which IVF takes place, some of these embryos are implanted and cherished, while others are literally "frozen out".
Quite predictably, most of the invited invited speakers and panellists proposed that IVF be allowed to continue, even if it resulted in the deliberate destruction of embryos. It was, however, a public conference and the vast majority of those who spoke from the floor were overwhelmingly opposed to any procedure which would result in the destruction of embryos or in undermining the structure of the family.
A small number of vocal protesters disrupted the proceedings. While they undoubtedly had a point, the manner in which they chose to articulate it was, in my view, unacceptable.
Their interventions served only to limit the time available for discussion. The case for protecting human embryos and for defending the integrity of the family is compelling, but it must be made through rational dialogue, which begins with respect for those with whose views we disagree fundamentally.
• Father Kevin Doran is secretary of the Irish Catholic Bishops Committee of Bioethics. The full text of the submission of the Irish Bishops Conference can be found on: www.healthcare-ethics.ie/hp.html