Skip Navigation
 

In Vitro Fertilization and Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis

 

The merging of two biotechnologies poses a dangerous combination as parents are allowed to screen their offspring and discard those that fail the test.

The process of creating so-called "test tube babies" meets genetic screening in the laboratory, and with disturbing results.

In Vitro Fertilization

The first successful birth resulting from in vitro fertilization was England’s Louise Brown—born July 25, 1978. Since then, more than one million babies have been born worldwide using this assisted reproductive technology.1

In vitro fertilization (IVF) takes place in a laboratory setting for the purpose of fertilizing an egg with sperm outside of the human body. This process involves a number of general steps:

  • Using drugs to stimulate the woman’s ovaries in order to produce a number of eggs in a single cycle;
  • Collecting mature eggs from the woman’s ovaries;
  • Collecting sperm from the man;
  • Fertilizing an egg with sperm in a laboratory environment;
  • Transferring the newly created human embryo(s) into the woman’s uterus for implantation, gestation and a birth.

The average cost of an IVF cycle in the United States is $12,000. Each cycle offers infertile couples a 25 to 30 percent chance of having a baby.2 Due to the expense and effort involved in IVF, some couples may create more embryos than they transfer in a given IVF cycle. In 2000, 65 percent of IVF procedures transferred three or fewer embryos to reduce the likelihood of multiple births, which may put mother and children at risk.3

The creation of additional, non-transferred embryos raises moral concerns for many. If frozen and thawed for a subsequent IVF cycle, some of the embryos may not survive. If frozen embryos remain after the couple completes all intended IVF cycles, it is common for infertility clinics to offer the parents the following options for the remaining embryos:

  • Donate the embryos to another infertile couple for transfer and adoption;4
  • Donate the embryos for scientific research that results in the destruction of the embryo;
  • Authorize the destruction of the embryos.

One alternative to creating additional embryos that is gaining in both popularity and success is freezing retrieved eggs that were not fertilized during the IVF cycle. The frozen eggs are then thawed, fertilized and transferred at a later time.

Many legal and moral questions surround IVF, including questions of ownership regarding unimplanted embryos when married couples divorce and the moral status of additional embryos—whether frozen or destroyed.

Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis

One outgrowth of IVF is the development of an early genetic test called pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD). PGD screens human embryos created through IVF in the earliest stages before transfer for implantation in the uterus. Embryos are subjected to biopsy, removing one or two sample cells for analysis.

Reasons for screening embryos vary, ranging from testing for genetic diseases and chromosomal disorders to providing a tissue match to treat a sick older sibling or selecting a child's gender. Once testing is complete, only those embryos with the desired genetic criteria are transferred to the mother’s uterus; the rest are discarded or donated for destructive scientific research.

Approximately 1000 babies worldwide have been born using PGD since it was first developed in 1989. 5 The use of PGD is controversial and unregulated in the U.S. In July 2002, the President’s Council on Bioethics recommended a federal review of PGD practices due to ethical concerns. 6

PGD raises questions in several areas, including the moral status of the human embryo, the destruction of young human life and allowing parents to determine the genetic characteristics of their children. For more information on this topic, see Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis



Carrie Gordon Earll is the Senior Policy Analyst for Bioethics at Focus on the Family and a fellow with the Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity.


1> Rosie Mestel, “Birth by test tube turns 25,” Los Angeles Times, July 24, 2003.
2> Emma Ross, “Strides made since first test-tube, but IVF still frustrating, costly for many,” Associated Press, July 24, 2003; “2000 Assisted Reproductive Technology Success Rates,” Centers for Disease Control, December 2002, p. 17, accessed on-line July 30, 2003 at CDC Assisted Reproductive Technology Reports 3> CDC report, December 2002, p. 34.
4> For more information about frozen embryo adoption, see www.snowflakes.org
5 Mark Henderson, “Embryo checks found safe for designer babies,” The (London) Times, August 18, 2004.
6“Human Cloning and Human Dignity,” The Report of the President’s Council on Bioethics, Public Affairs, New York, NY, 2002. See Executive Summary: page LVIII in book; page xxxvi in on-line PDF version, accessed January 4, 2005 at Human Cloning and Human Dignity



If you enjoy reading stories like this one, sign up for the free CitizenLink Daily Update e-mail. You'll get news and commentary from Focus on the Family Action delivered right to your computer.

Citizen Magazine
 

Citizen Magazine

Citizen gives you information no one else offers—stories that set the record straight on the issues that affect your family, your neighborhood, and your church—plus stories of local heroes who've overcome great odds (and their own fears) and stood up for the values you cherish, along with practical steps that help you make a difference.

Subscribe to Citizen