In Vitro Fertilization and Ethical Dualism

Department of Health and Social Security, Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Human Fertilization and Embryology. (London: Her Majesty's Stationary Office. July 1984). The Committee to Consider the Social. Ethical and Legal Issues Arising from In Vitro Fertilization. Report on the Disposition of Embryos Produced by In Vitro Fertilization (Melbourne. Victoria: Government Printer. Melbourne. August, 1984.)

These features would be grounds for the moral rejection of IVF and ET. I will not discuss here whether there could be the so called “ideal case” in which these features could be eliminated. There are other important questions which cannot be dealt with here, for example, whether the “proportionalist” method of ethical decision-making is acceptable and whether it may be applied to this matter. For an extensive treatment see Flynn Eileen P. Human Fertilization in Vitro: A Catholic Moral Perspective (Lantham, M.D.: University Press of America, 1984). The author argues a case for IVF in terms of the “proportionalist” method.

Paul VI. in his encyclical letter Humanae Vitae (July 25, 1968), n. 12, based his teaching on artificial contraception on “… the inseparable connection, willed by God and unable to be broken by man on his own initiative, between the two meanings of the conjugal act; the unitive meaning and the procreative meaning.” Sec AAS 60 (1968): 481-503, p. 488.

A clear statement of this position is the following: “The distinction between two parts in man — that which is common to man and all the animals, and that which is proper to man — results in a two layer version of man. A top layer of rationality is merely added to an already constituted bottom layer of animality. The union between the two layers is merely extrinsic — the one lies on top of the other. The animal layer retains its own finalities and tendencies independent of the demands of rationality. Thus man may not interfere in the animal processes and finalities. Note that the results of such an anthropology are most evident in the area of sexuality.” Curran Charles E. “Absolute Norms and Medical Ethics.” in Absolutes in Moral Theology, ed. by Curran Charles E. (Washington: Corpus Books, 1968): 108-153. p. 118.

May William E. in particular, has developed this criticism. See his Sex, Marriage and Chastity (Chicago: Franciscan Herald Press, 1981), p. 3. May refers to this as the “separatist” understanding of human sexuality.

See Richard A. , McCormick S. J. “Notes on Moral Theology.” Theological Studies 40 (1979), p. 108. “… it seems very difficult to reject in vitro fertilization with embryo transfer on the sole ground of artificiality, or (what amounts to the same thing) the physical separation of the unitive and the procreative — unless one accepts this physical separation as an inviolable value.”

McCormick himself explicitly rejects this position. He recognizes that the separation of procreation from sexual love-making is not neutral, “… to say that would be to minimalize the physical aspects of our being in a dualistic way.” See “Notes on Moral Theology,” (1979), p. 108.

Address to the Second Congress of Fertility and Sterility (May 19, 1956). See AAS 48 (1956): 467–474, p. 470. He went on to reject attempts at artificial human fecundation “in vitro’ as immoral and absolutely unlawful, p. 471.

Address to the Fourth International Congress of Catholic Doctors (Sept. 29, 1949). See AAS 41 (1949): 557–561, p. 560; Address to the Italian Union of Midwives (Oct. 29, 1951). See AAS 43 (1951): 835-845.

Humanae Vitae, n. 7, AAS60(1968), p. 485. What must be taken account of is the “whole man” and the “whole” to which he is called.

Humanae Vitae, n. 9, p. 486.

Humanae Vitae, n. 10, p. 487.

“For in the end all the matters which you have discussed and will discuss come back to this one question: Who is man? — man in the unity of his personal being, in the truth of his relationship with God, in the goodness of the married relationship.” Address to International Congress on the Philosophy and the Theology of Responsible Parenthood (June 9. 1984). See AAS 76 (1984): 844–848, p. 846.

“For in the end all the matters which you have discussed and will discuss come back to this one question: Who is man? — man in the unity of his personal being, in the truth of his relationship with God, in the goodness of the married relationship.” Address to International Congress on the Philosophy and the Theology of Responsible Parenthood (June 9. 1984). See AAS 76 (1984), p. 874. Cf. Familiaris Consortia, n. 11.

Similarly, if IVF were used as a means of manipulating the future child, e.g., to select a child of a particular sex or with certain genetic characteristics. Cf. Patrick Verspieren S.J. “L'aventure de la fecondation in vitro,” Etudes 357 (1982): 479–491, p. 483.

Cf. Charles E. Curran, “In Vitro Fertilization,” in Curran Charles E. Moral Theology: A Continuing Journey (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press. 1982) 112–140, p. 121.

John Mahoney S.J. Bioethics and Belief (London: Sheed & Ward. 1984), pp. 15–17. A similar proposal is made by Verspieren, op. cit., p. 482.

Cf. McDowell Janet Dickey “Ethical Implications of In Vitro Fertilization,” The Christian Century 100 (Oct. 19. 1983) 936–938. This author also presumes that “artificiality” i.e. the severance of a natural link between intercourse and procreation, is the ground on which those who argue against IVF base their case.

Humanae Vitae, n. 12. AAS 60 (1968), p. 488.

Giunchedi S. J. Francesco “La fecondazione ‘in vitro”: considerazioni morali,” Rassengna di teologia 24 (1983): 289–307, pp. 292-294.

Giunchedi S. J. Francesco. “La fecondazione ‘in vitro”: considerazioni morali,” Rassengna di teologia 24 (1983), pp. 301, 306.

Giunchedi S. J. Francesco “La fecondazione ‘in vitro”: considerazioni morali,” Rassengna di teologia 24 (1983), p. 301.

Finnis John M. “IVF and the Catholic Tradition,” The Month 17/2 (February. 1984): 55–58. This article is a defense and explanation of the submission of the Catholic Bishops’ Joint Committee on Bioethical Issues to the Warnock Committee.

McCarthy Donald B. , & Bayer Edward J. , Handbook on Critical Sexual Issues (Garden City. N.Y.: Doubleday & Co., 1984), pp. 206–209.

Cf. Ramsey Paul “Shall We ‘Reproduce’? I. The Medical Issues of In Vitro Fertilization.” JAMA 220/10 (June 5. 1972): 1346–1350: “Shall We ‘Reproduce’? II. Rejoinders and Future Forecast,” JAMA 220/11 (June 12. 1972): 1480-1485: Giunchedi also argues against IVF on the grounds of risk of harm. See “La fecondazione,” p. 305.

May William E. “‘Begotten, Not Made’: Reflections on the Laboratory Generation of Human Life.” Perspectives in Bioethics (New Britain. Conn.: Muriel, 1983): 31–60, p. 46 McCarthy and Bayer make a similar case. See Handbook, p. 210.

Richard McCormick finds this argument not proven. “Notes on Moral Theology,” Theological Studies 45 (1984), p. 102. However. I suggest that the argument is not as “impenetrable” as he finds it to be.

Ziegler. Josef G. “Zeugung ausserhalb des Mutterliebes,” Theologisch-praktische Quartalschrift 131 (1983): 231–241.

Cf. Ziegler. Josef G. “Zeugung ausserhalb des Mutterliebes,” Theologisch-praktische Quartalschrift 131 (1983), p. 238, cf. Gaudium et Spes n. 48.

Ziegler , op. cit., p. 239. In Ziegler's view the issue is the intentional or moral unity of partnership and parenthood, which normally finds its expression in physical unity.

Ziegler , op. cit., p. 239.

Cf. Ramsey Paul “Shall We Reproduce?” II pp. 1480–1481. Herman Hepp, “Die In-Vitro-Befruchtung: Perspektiven und Gefahren,” “Stimmen der Zeit 201 (1983): 291-304, p. 300m also holds that the procedure can be considered “therapy” for sterility.

Cf. Verspieren “L'Aventure,” p. 483: Henri Wattiaux, “Insemination artificielle, fecondation ‘in vitro’ et transplantation embryonnaire: reperes ethiques,” Esprit et Vie 93 (1983): 353-369, p. 369.

Cf. for example, Curran “In Vitro Fertilization,” p. 117; “Human beings exist as corporeal persons in time and space with other human beings; … they are more than merely freedom events.”

Verspieren “L'aventure,” p. 483. Cited with approval by Wattiaux. “Insemination arlificielle,” p. 362.

Ziegler “Zeugung,” p. 239.