Crockin, S. (4 December, 2005). “Embryo Wars: How Do You ‘Adopt’ a Frozen Egg?” The Boston

Globe.

 

 

Overview

This article begins by presenting the view of President Bush, that the tide of stem-cell research must be curbed by the simple moral recognition that there is no such thing as a ‘surplus’ embryo. What is to be done with the embryos that have been set aside for medical research? According to Bush, we should focus on adoption. And his Republican colleagues in Congress agree, granting nearly $10 million to embryo adoption programs such as “Snowflake.”

 

Crockin, a lawyer in the field of reproductive technology, right away aligns this viewpoint and strategy with the so-called Christian agenda of the religious right. She then contends that there is, in effect, no such thing as embryo adoption, and that it is possible the “hoopla” is a carefully crafted “language creep” meant to “change the public’s perception of embryos.”

 

“Rather than a collection of undifferentiated cells, they become ‘preborn’ children and part of a thinly disguised antichoice agenda and an all-out cultural war on modern reproductive medicine, stem cell research, and personal choice.”

 

Crockin’s position turns on the following points:

 

·        Embryo donation for family formation is a key part of in-vitro fertilization programs, though this is an option for a limited number of families.

 

·        Approximately 88 % of the estimated 400,000 frozen embryos today remain under the active control of their parents.

 

·        Of the remaining embryos, roughly 2% of patients chose to donate them to another family for procreation.

 

·        Many of the remaining embryos are simply not available for transfer. Some of these have known genetic disorders.

 

·        Adoption is a poor analogy for the transfer of genetic material in the form of embryos, eggs, or sperm. An embryo does not have legal parents, and is not available for adoption.

 

·        If an embryo is said to be a “life with inalienable rights” then patients would lose the right to control their own genetic material.

 

·        So called embryo ‘adoption’ is neither widely used or legally necessary. Conservatives are using the issue in order to elevate the embryo/fetus to the status of constitutionally-protected personhood.

 

·        An adoption framework would ultimately reduce choice.

 

 

Questions for Reflection and Discussion

 

1.      Do you think Crockin’s argument concerning “creeping language” on the religious right is fair?

 

2.      Should embryos be treated as having ‘inalienable rights’?

 

3.      To what extent should reproductive ‘choice’ guide one’s thinking about stem-cell and embryonic research?

 

4.      Should embryonic adoption become a more viable and accessible option for aspiring parents?

 

5.      Will this issue continue to be a significant one for public policy and medical science, or will the ‘hoopla’ soon fade?

 

 

Implications:

 

Crockin’s bitterness toward the Bush Administration’s “agenda” does little to hide her own agenda: choice is the supreme value. Her critique of the adoption angle is insightful, if sobering, but she seems wholly unconcerned with the manner in which embryonic science supports and sustains an attitude of entitlement on the part of future parents. It’s pitfalls notwithstanding, the Bush Administration’s position is at least attempting to address the moral predicament we now find ourselves in. And this is the work that must be done before rushing to protect a choice agenda. 

 

 

Christopher S. Yates cCYS