Another IVF Tragedy Illustrates How "Assisted Reproduction" Increasingly Epitomizes an "Entitlement Culture"
In Japan, a woman underwent IVF and was implanted, seemingly a happy pregnancy. Then, things proved to be terribly wrong. From the story: A Japanese woman was likely impregnated with the fertilized egg of another woman by accident during an in vitro procedure last year, hospital officials said Thursday. The woman, who is in her 20s, aborted the pregnancy when she was told of the potential mix-up at the government-run hospital in Kagawa prefecture, about 330 miles (530 kilometers) southwest of Tokyo. She is now suing the local government for 20 million yen ($222,000), according to news reports. Hospital officials apologized for the mistake at a news conference Thursday. "She was very happy after undergoing such a difficult procedure and becoming pregnant, but unfortunately a mistake had been made," said Yuzo Matsumoto, director of the Kagawa Prefectural Central Hospital.
This is an example of the hedonism I have been warning against in discussing the coup de culture. People believe they have the right to obtain whatever they want, however they want it, and then reject it if they are not fully pleased. In this case, the woman wanted a baby. But she was implanted with a baby she did not want so she had it destroyed in utero. And then she sues.
Another woman may want a baby and use a sister's, or even a stranger's egg in the fertilization process, happy to carry a baby that is not hers biologically, but is in love. But the child's mother is really her aunt, and perhaps even a stranger. We have seen the potential cost of such "novel" arrangements in the desperate yearning of the adopted to find their natural parents.
Another woman has five embryos implanted and three destroyed through "selective reduction," thrilled to have "twins," when she really had two of five quintuplets, and the two living babies will eventually know that they are only in life through the luck of where the abortionist's tools happened to land.
Another want-to-be mother hires a poor woman to be her substitute womb because she has health problems, or doesn't want stretch marks or her career track affected by the pregnancy, and then contractually forces the woman to give up a child she gestated and bonded with for 9 months--potentially impacting the child as well as the birth mother since mother/child bonding begins before birth. Another couple go through IVF, have their embryos tested, and toss out those that might get adult onset cancer, for all we know destroying the person that might have found cancer's cure.
None of us is allowed to comment about any of this because the rules of the modern age tell us we may never moralize about or judge a woman's "reproductive choices." But then another woman upsets that particular applecart by having 8 children, added to 6 she already has, all through IVF. Finally the choice-is-everything crowd gets upset about something (other than the loathed pro lifers.) But by what right? They have profoundly undermined the power of society to expect people to adhere to reasonable norms.
As for me, I think it is all upsetting, and--yes I will say it--the field increasingly epitomizes a society that thinks we are all entitled to everything we want, regardless of the moral costs in the lives harmed or sacrificed in the obtaining. But wisdom tells us that sometimes we have to live within limits and make do as best we can. That hurts individuals, and we should all be there to empathize and help ease the pain. But it also helps build a healthier society. It is a forgotten lesson that is costing us dearly.
Labels: IVF. Implantation Mistake. Coup de Culture. Terminal Nonjudgmentalism


15 Comments:
"...two living babies will eventually know that they are only in life through the luck of where the abortionist's tools happened to land."
Oh, this is just so, so horrible.
"But wisdom tells us that sometimes we have to live within limits and make do as best we can. That hurts individuals..."
There is a reason that electric fences shock. You really, really don't (or aren't allowed) to go to the other side.
What about the fact that the woman aborted someone else's embryos?
Was this even an issue?
I would never, ever ever be in this situation but I think that if it was my embryos accidentally implanted- and aborted - I would be pissed.
That's the thing about the arguments in favor of abortion, holyterror. As they say, no one has a right to use another person's body without their permission. Once the woman found out that the embryo which was implanted in her was not hers, she withdrew her permission to the embryo to use her body. Hence, she had every right to kill it. And it doesn't matter what the actual parents of that embryo want. The embryo was in the wrong place at the wrong time and deserved to die. So goes the pro-choice logic.
Extremely sick.
"A Japanese woman was likely impregnated with the fertilized egg of another woman by accident during an in vitro procedure last year, hospital officials said Thursday. The woman, who is in her 20s, aborted the pregnancy when she was told of the potential mix-up...." [Emphasis mine.]
So she went through IVF, no picnic I am told, the embryo implanted, and she then possibly aborted her OWN CHILD b/c it MIGHT not have been hers.
This makes me angry.
Maybe there needs to be psychiatric testing done on people who seek IVF to make sure they have some dadgum sense.
Well I'm not sentimental about embryos and foetuses, and I'm less concerned about them than I am about the disabled and the elderly, and I don't think finding a cure for cancer or anything else is such a big deal. What concerns me here is that i.v.f. exists. If it wouldn't exist but for animal experimentation well there's just one more reason that there should not be animal experimentation. You can't say all these scientific advances are wonderful and desireable and that we are entitled to them and then say but we have become spoiled about them and think we have more rights to choices than we really should. Mess with nature, and messing with nature includes animal experimentation, and this is where it leads. Can't have cake and eat it too. The same argument that sometimes we can't have all we want and it's more important to stay within societal norms and of course people should empathize but -- well that's the very same argument against our entitlement to "the benefits of the advances of science" and animal research. Can't have cake and eat it too. Does human exceptionalism want to defeat the death culture or not? Well maybe it requires a sacrifice. Ever consider that? A sacrifice of the "benefits" of animal research. But human exceptionalism won't consider that because it's narcissistic (e.g. involves a sense of entitlement, and greed) which is why it can't win in the long run. Just like what happened in this instance is what human exceptionalism would consider narcissistic. Stop going in circles! LIFE is at stake!
If we're so wonderful and entitled why are so many people the way they are that SHS decries? Well? The answer is not in the judaeo-christian tradition and the concept of free will, our capacity for good, or evil, or choice (there's that word again, and it's integral to human exceptionalism which should tell one something). In order to survive we can't afford a lot of us to be all messed up. To straighten things out we have to stop making excuses and do the work of straightening things out. Which involves stopping animal experimentation and no longer thinking of ourselves as so special and entitled. THAT's the way to BE special -- and survive. The rest is all just talk that can only go in circles while we all get steamrolled by the death culture.
I think it is terrible the way some people behave...it seems that for a lot of folks out there, having a child is like shopping at the mall. You purchase the amount you want, if you dont like it you toss it out, and so on.
You end up with some twisted scenarios like the ones we just read, all because we are oh so darn arrogant and selfish.
Bringing a child into the world is supposed to be an unselfish deed. When your child is born, you should be ready to focus your whole attention to this new person and put yourself lower on the priority list. So doing it in such a way like it was described here, is completely against that view. It is all "me and what I want" and who cares about anyone else -embryo or not-. People with such a selfish vision should not become parents because it goes right against the nature of the act itself.
@lanthe: You said--
"...The answer is not in the judaeo-christian tradition..."
:snip:
"...To straighten things out we have to stop making excuses and do the work of straightening things out..."
I would like to mention that, among other things, straightening things out by not making excuses is very much part of the 'judaeo-christian tradition'.
I think your remarks about how practices such as surrogate motherhood are harmful to the child are spot-on. I posted in my blog about the ethics of surrogacy, in which I concluded it was evil — evil in the philosophical sense of being opposed to the good. I adopted a child and have seen first-hand the kind of anguish a child experiences when he is not raised by his first mother. In surrogacy, a baby is treated like an object, not a person with feelings and rights.
I don't see inconsistency here. She bought and paid for a child and went through the ordeal of the i.v.f., and if it's not what she wanted, if she had the right to buy and pay for it, she had the right to discard it and be compensated via a lawsuit. Similarly whoever the embryo in question really belonged to has the right to be compensated via litigation. WELL THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS IF THERE IS I.V.F. Why is anyone surprised? The restaurant cooks your food wrong, you send it back, right? Well if you pay to "have" a child -- consider the verb there -- you own the darned thing and can do with it as you wish. OK TELL ME AGAIN HOW I.V.F. IS A SCIENTIFIC/MEDICAL ADVANCE WE SHOULD BE HAPPY ABOUT BECAUSE WE ARE SO EXCEPTIONAL AND ENTITLED.
Salt Racer: I don't see it that way.
WHICH, BY THE WAY -- ISN'T IT ILLEGAL THEN, SINCE SLAVERY IS ILLEGAL? Has anyone thought of approaching stopping it via that argument?
Ianthe, the slavery metaphor is frequently invoked in these sanctity of life arguments. But you are right: the treatment of embryos in IVF amounts to human trafficking. And there's worse: in embryonic stem-cell research, a class of human beings exists in order to be destroyed. Human trafficking par excellence.
Salt Racer: Even if it does, and I take your word for it, the Judaeo-Christian tradition isn't necessary to see that it has to be done and do it.
Clauz: Right. I consider myself selfish in not wanting children at this point in my life and for the rest of it. But the selfishness of people who "want" them, and in effect buy them, and are in defiance of nature, boggles my mind, and if a selfish person finds what someone else is doing selfish, well, the someone else must be really selfish; it goes even beyond takes one to know one. I think they have a lot of nerve.
Gregory: Thanks. It doesn't surprise me that we've create a class of human beings that exists in order to be destroyed after we've used non-human animals in laboratories and breed them for that purpose, which is a whole other thing than killing and eating other animals, which other animals do as well. It's not FOR our survival; it's AGAINST our survival.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home