FREE ESSAY ON REPRODUCTIVE TECHNOLOGY

REPRODUCTIVE TECHNOLOGY

Reproductive Technology
Technological development and the advancement of science constantly raises new political
and legal challenges. We must promote scientific development, but at the same time we
must also impose restrictions involving certain human and social values. Reproductive
technology is one of the best examples of the challenges posed by the development of
medical science and it's involvement with the law. Issues involved with Reproductive
Technology include: Techniques, Morals and Ethics, and The Charter of Right and Freedoms.

Reproduction is a fact of life, but it has always fascinated humans. Why did babies die?
Why were some people sterile? How can childless couples be helped? To answer these
questions scientists began research. This research began mostly in the late nineteenth
century. However, some of the techniques used today have been used for hundreds of years.

Artificial Insemination is the oldest known assisted reproductive technology. The first
known cases of this type occurred in 1790. Many years of research were put into the
development of In Vitro Fertilization. Following the research dealing with humans,
scientists began with animals. The first successful transfer of an embryo which resulted
into the birth of young was between two rabbits in 1891. During this time, many attempts
were made to transfer embryos between mammals. Success was not achieved until the 1970s.
Using mice proved to be an important advance because the similarity in the technique used
for humans. Despite these similarities it was a long time before anyone achieved success
in humans. Bob Edwards of the UK reported successful fertilization of human eggs in vitro
in 1969. Upon finding a technique to retrieve the eggs, experiments were performed to
determine the best time to retrieve the eggs, how long they should be incubated, and what
conditions were most favourable for the embryos. The first "test tube baby" whose name is
Louise Brown, was born in 1978. 
Since the development of these techniques, many new technologies have been established. A
total of 20,659 babies were born in 1996 (in the USA) using one of the following
techniques: In vitro fertilization, gamete intra fallopian transfer, and zygote intra
fallopian transfer. In vitro fertilization involves extracting a woman's eggs,
fertilizing the eggs in the laboratory, and then transferring the resulting embryo(s)
into the woman's uterus through the cervix. Gamete intra fallopian transfer is when a
fiberoptic instrument called a laparoscope is used to help place the unfertilized eggs
and sperm into the woman's fallopian tubes through small incisions in her abdomen. Zygote
intra fallopian transfer involves fertilizing a woman's eggs in the laboratory and then
using a laparoscope to help transfer the fertilized eggs into her fallopian tubes. There
are a number of other techniques but they are not as popular and do not have a very high
success rate. 
Other techniques have been used for specific reasons. Some parents who have children with
blood disorders decide to have a "test-tube baby" so that it can save their suffering
child. "Ellen Phillipson called a fertility clinic in Newcastle upon Tyne to discuss the
possibility that a baby brother or sister could save her four-year-old daughter, Simone,
who has Fanconi anemia"(NP-1). There is a very high demand for this type of reproduction
technology. The first "Designer Baby" is thought to be Adam Nash. "Adam's parents
selected their son's embryo from among others in a petri dish in order to ensure it was
free of his sister Molly's life-threatening blood disease, Franconi's anemia."(NP-2)
With all these new reproductive technologies becoming available to people, ethicists are
popping up with questions on whether the developing child is harmed during the medical
procedure. In the case with Adam Nash, he experienced no pain when donating his umbilical
cord (since there are no known nerve terminals in the umbilical arteries). In future
cases involving organ donation it will be hard to assess whether the donor child will be
harmed. "How will it be possible to assess whether a child from whom a kidney is removed
would have been stronger and healthier had he or she not been subjected to an operation
in infancy?"(NP-3) This question is highly controversial with the ethicists. But there is
another concern that passes unnoticed by the ethicists. "A human being's moral status
should not depend upon its parents' love, or lack of it, or on their opinion about its
genetic profile. It is obviously true some people have children for bad reasons, or for
no reason at all. And it is also wholly good Molly Nash has been given a chance to live.
But it is precisely such cases , in which the benefits are obvious and the drawbacks
subtle, that are surely and swiftly overthrowing the ethical codes that have guided our
civilization for generations."(NP-4) The argument for saving the life of an innocent
child has, in this case, inched us closer to accepting that human beings may be treated
as "utilities". What does it mean when a person becomes the treatment? Just how far can
we go? Is there a difference between conceiving a child for umbilical cord cells or bone
marrow transplants, for a kidney or a lung? Do parents have the right to produce one
child as a set of spare parts for another child? The petri-dish embryo that became Adam
was genetically tested for its own health and its sister's. But testing isn't limited to
lethal childhood diseases. Do we want to screen out a disease that won't click in for 40
years, if at all? And contrary to that do we want to choose enhancement genes to pick
children for height, hair color, or musical ability? "We are going there. It's just a
question of when we get there."(Mag-1)
Another case where a baby is going to be used to provide aid is in the case of a Scottish
couple who are using the recent UK human rights bill to force authorities to allow them
to chose the sex of their next child. Alan and Louise Masterton, who have four boys, say
that they have psychologists reports claiming that they have a need for a "female
dimension" to the family following the death of their only daughter, Nicole. They were
bombarded with suggestions that he and his wife were trying to exploit the new law to
create a "designer baby" through selective in vitro fertilization. "We're not looking to
replace Nicole. We're intelligent enough to be aware that we can never replace Nicole.
What we're trying to do is help heal our family again and have another daughter."(NP-5)
The technique the Mastertons want to use is known as pre-implantation genetic diagnosis.
This allows couples to screen the embryos that are implanted, to avoid those that carry
genetic disorders such as hemophilia. "The Masterton's case has stroked fears in Britain
that science is moving too fast for the law to lay down ethical boundaries."(NP-6) The
British are also worried about "procreation tourism" where couples travel to the country
that will provide them the medical procedures they want. While the U.K. and other
European nations struggle to restrict the use of human embryo technology, the United
States is inching forward with it. "If we believe in certain ethical principles, then we
should not be embarrassed about upholding them in our jurisdiction."(NP-7) The Mastertons
hope the European Convention on Human Rights will help them get around the current rules
in Britain. They argue they have been denied a "fair hearing" and "respect for private
and family life" which are two rights guaranteed by the convention. Supporters think the
change will protect the individual. Opponents say it will clog the courts. 
Section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms reads as follows:
"Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to
be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental
justice."(LB-1)
Under the Charter it is held that the unborn do not have Charter rights. These values
were taken from Canadian Law prior to the enactment of the Charter but when the Charter
was put into existence the courts that addressed the issue followed the traditional
common law position. The only places that do protect the right to life of the unborn are
Ireland and the former West Germany. Legally there is nowhere in the Charter that states
specifically that someone has or has not the right to procreate. It was thought to be
entailed in the right to life, liberty or security of the person. But the meaning of the
"right to liberty" has never been clearly set out by the Supreme Court of Canada. The
Court has noted that "it is capable of a broad range of meaning".(LB-2) Justice Wilson
has stated a definition of liberty that would entail a right to procreate. In her view,
"the right to liberty contained in s.7 guarantees to every individual a degree of
personal autonomy over important decisions intimately affecting their private lives.
Specifically in the Morgentaler case Justice Wilson stated, 
"I believe that the framers of the Constitution in guaranteeing "liberty" as a
fundamental value in a free and democratic society had in mind the freedom of the
individual to develop and realize his potential to the full, to plan his own life to suit
his own character, to make his own choices for good or ill, to be non-conformist,
idiosyncratic and even eccentric - to be, in today's parlance, "his own person" and
accountable as such."(LB-3) 
With that definition one can see how the simple words of s.7 of the Charter are not that
simple and can be thought of in many different ways. These words in the Charter are not
clearly stated as they should of been. In another case involving the sterilization of
habitual criminals Justice Douglas stated, "We are dealing here with legislation which
involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental
to the very existence and survival of the race..."(LB-4) 
The law books are flooded with specific cases that involved a court deciding that rights
of the individual including the right of privacy and the right to procreate is in fact
valid and pertains to Section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. But the Supreme
Court of Canada does not want to address this very controversial issue because of
possible repercussions. 
The whole issue of Reproductive Technology has taken this world into a totally different
way of thinking. We question the ethics and morals that we have kept close to us for
hundreds of years without questioning them until now. Is it "right" to alter the embryo
to suit specific needs or does this go against everything we believe in. It is a very
controversial issue and no one is ready to set down limits or guidelines to represent it.
As this world is developing newer technologies we are faced with decisions to make about
where we draw the line and how far we are willing to go with respect to altering genes
and by doing so changing the fate of someone. But in another sense are we not making
ourselves stronger and immune to lethal diseases? Does this not make the civilization of
mankind stronger as a whole or are we just slowly killing off our authenticity and making
us "less human"? The whole basis of life is to be unique in your own way and similar in
others. Other issues could result from this including cloning. We don't have the answers
to our own questions and yet they will be needed as our technology takes over our lives
more and more. We must promote scientific development and at the same time impose proper
restrictions on human and social values. We must overcome the challenges we are faced
with and make sure we keep up with our own technology. In a sense we are controlling our
destiny.
References
(NP-1) Newspaper Article "High demand for life-saving test-tube babies" (National Post,
Tuesday, October 10, 2000)
(NP-2)(NP-3)(NP-4) Newspaper Article "Utility Babies"(National Post, Thursday, October 5,
2000)
(Mag-1) Time Magazine (Oct/00) "Designer Baby" ( pg.67)
(NP-5)(NP-6)(NP-7) Newspaper Article "U.K. couple see bill as tool in quest to choose
baby's sex" (National Post, Thursday, October 5, 2000) 
(LB-1)(LB-2)(LB-3)(LB-4) GOV. DOCS. "Medically Assisted Procreation Law Reform Commission
of Canada" (pg.74-100)
Other References
1) "Controlling Our Reproductive Destiny" (Kaplan, Lawrence J. 1945)
2) "How To Get Pregnant With The New Technology" (Silber, Sherman J.)
3) "In Vitro Fertilization" (Sher, Geoffrey, 1943)
4) "Remaking Eden" (Silver, Lee M.)
5) "Fertility Book" (Marrs, Richard P.)