I’ve been reading the news again. I know I shouldn’t, it just pisses me off, but I’m a slow learner. One of the featured stories on yahoo talked about a fertility clinic in Barcelona that was adopting out unused frozen embryos as opposed to using them for stem cell research.
Upon reading this, a question popped into my head. Are the genetic parents asked for their consent? I say genetic since, in this case, biologic parent is a matter of conjecture considering the adoptive mother is the one giving birth and there is some evidence of maternal interference during the gestational period. In short, the woman carrying the fetus can affect it.
Some may argue they gave their consent when they didn’t want the rest of their embryos. I say that depends on the contract they signed. The story makes it sound like the genetic parents may have thought that the embryos were going to be used for research and instead are being used to knock up strangers. At the very least this may be a breech of contract. I mean if the contract stated “use for stem cell research or whatever” then that is a pretty wide playing field. If it said only for research, well then these doctors are trying to play football on a raquetball court.
And before all the pro-lifers start jumping down my throat, let me state my case. If I donate blood to the Red Cross, then I expect it to be used as advertised: for the blood supply or for research. If I found out it was being used to feed vampires, I would be upset to say the least.
Now if I have gone through a lot of trouble to get pregnant including frozen embryos and I sign a paper saying once I am through these embryos will be used for research or destroyed, I am going to kill the doctor that caused my down the street neighbor to get pregnant with my genetics. If there is going to be another carbon copy of me running around I deserve to at least be consulted.
So imagine it, twenty years down the road, two kids from different families meet, fall in love, get married, and BAM! have a baby with three eyes. We’re not talking sperm bank here with only a 50% match. We’re not talking about a daddy with loose pants. We’re talking 100% match siblings that don’t know it.
If the genetic parents know and consent, I say great. Then at least if they know the family name of who got their embryos they can steer their children away from a potential disaster. Nature has no built-in warning system. Close relatives not being allowed to marry is a cultural taboo (and a good one – without it the gene pool would be a wading pool.) And face it, daytime TV would be really boring with a warning system.
The issue here isn’t whether or not to save the embryos. The issue is stealing, or rather, misappropriation. The genetic parent has a right to know and a right in the decision- making. If I find out one of my genetic children is living in an abusive household, I should have the legal recourse to recover him or her especially if the embryo was given away without my expressed consent.
By that same token, if I have someone else’s genetic child and they lose theirs, should they have the right to claim mine? In our country, the genetic parent is usually given preference over the adoptive one especially if consent to adopt was never given. The article reads as though the clinic is circumventing the genetic parent under the guise of the embryos being turned over for research. Well, what is involved in adopting an embryo instead of a child? Is it the same or are there leniencies? The genetic parents didn’t abandon the embryos but made a responsible decision to turn them over for research as opposed to being destroyed. Without consultation, wouldn’t this be a case of black market babies, just in test tube form?
Of course it’s probably just a case of bad reporting and it’s after midnight. My mind can latch onto all sorts of science fiction possibilities at this hour.
Well written article. And way way to logical in this insane world.
It never ceases to amaze me that people who are desperate for a child only want little babies, and somehow think that the birthing process makes you more of a parent or somehow fulfills you lifes meaning. Before the embroyo clinics adopt out fertilized eggs, they should have good legal advice. What you are saying is completely true. In Kansas, a biological parent only has to prove that they spent some money on the child during the conception, and subsequent gestation period. I know of a couple (in Wathena) that had legally adopted a boy only to have him taken away after two years. Why you ask? Because the biological father could prove that he spent $20.00 or less on the mother for support. When he found out she was pregnant, he didn't want the child, but of course, he didn't sign any papers. She had moved out on her own and was getting government assistance--therefore being a loving mother, she knew she could not support this child by herself and that he deserved a two parent home. She put the boy up for adoption. I have always wondered if the father were offered enough money, if he wouldn't have relinguished his claim. This went all the way to the Kansas Supreme court --but the verdict was the father got custody. If I remember correctly, the father already had 5 children by other women.
Now I am not saying that this father loved this son less than his other children, but I wonder where his true heart was.
I have been shocked in the recent weeks to hear on the news of a 66 year old woman in Romania that, after being on fertility drugs for 9 years gave birth to a girl (she was pregnant with twins, but one died). And of course the 56 year old lady (married to a 29 year old man) in Florida that gave birth to triplets. Seems that she went to El Salvadore to be implanted with embroyos (some one elses not hers). Personally, I think both of these women are insane. Do you realize how old they will be when these children graduate from high school. This too makes me wonder if there are some alternative motives involved. I don't know about the 66 year old, but the 56 year old said that since she had a younger husband, they both felt he deserved to have children. Why, they aren't his--he had nothing to do with fertilizing them. I say if he wanted children, he should have either married a younger woman or somehow figured out how he could have had them himself.
By the way, the woman in Florida had a heart attack while she was having these children (ceaserean of course). So guess who is getting to pay for the medical care and all of the rest of the stuff. You got it, you and I. You know that she will also be eligible for Social Security--if she is disabled and cannot work--and therefore, probably can get SSI for the children also. And then we wonder why Social Security is going broke.
Well don't get me started on that subject--I could write volumns on it.
By the way Gina, since this is your good old mom--and after reading this article--do you want a little brother or sister????? Just kidding--I know that if something like that happened, I would be headed to Shady Pine or a padded cell.
Love you lots--keep writing--hope that I didn't ramble too much. Off to train the maintenance guys on real time results--what a trip...
Love ya
Mom
Posted by: Mom at March 1, 2005 05:47 AM