Embryo Adoption: Questions Answered

Published in Christian Renewal magazine, 12 Sept 2007

In the December 13, 2006 edition of Christian Renewal, I described my family’s experience with embryo adoption(see also here). There are more 400,000 frozen embryos in the United States left over from in-vitro fertilization procedures. Thanks to our own often-difficult experience infertility, my wife and I had the opportunity to adopt three of those embryos. Only one survived: our beloved son, Iain, who has recently celebrated his first birthday.

I will never forget how strange embryo adoption sounded when we first heard about it, nor all the difficult questions we had to sort through as we considered it. Since we have been asked many of these same questions in response to our story, perhaps it would be helpful to offer some answers.


Does in-vitro fertilization always threaten embryonic life?

One of the main reasons my wife and I chose to adopt an embryo rather than try in-vitro fertilization (IVF) is that there are several standard IVF practices that would be objectionable to anyone who believes, as we do, that even the smallest embryo is a human being. In order to increase their success rates, which in turn enable them to attract more customers, IVF clinics do a number of things to sift out which embryos are more likely to survive, and these practices can result in the destruction of embryos. My wife and I were not willing to risk that our children would be exposed to such practices, so we were unwilling to try IVF as a solution to our infertility.

However, IVF can be done in a way that respects human life. Doctors could fertilize only as many eggs as they are willing to implant, which would prevent leftover embryos from being cryogenically frozen. They could transfer all the fertilized embryos regardless of their ‘quality’, giving each one a chance at life instead of being discarded. With each decision that might place human life in jeopardy, doctors could choose to act in such a way that safeguards it.

Why, then, are such tests and procedures common practice? Simply put, doctors generally do not regard embryos as human beings. Consequently, their policies and choices are based on increasing their success rate.

There are, however, some few clinics that are willing to follow the parents’ preferences over their own standard procedures. These clinics might be difficult to find, but there are some. Also, certain nations – for example, Italy – have strict laws governing IVF practices that protect human life. Consequently, IVF tends to be done well in such countries.

So although those who believe that human life begins at conception might have certain problems with common IVF practices, those problems are attributable to the doctors who practice IVF and are not intrinsic to IVF itself.

Can the transfer of multiple embryos cause unnecessary problems?

In either IVF or embryo adoption, multiple embryos, usually three, are transferred in an effort to increase the probability of successful pregnancy. Usually only one of these embryos successfully implants. Very rarely do two implant, and the likelihood of all three implanting is next to nil.

This survival rate gave us pause: if typically only one in three embryos are successfully transferred, then do IVF and embryo adoption unnecessarily threaten life? We were surprised to learn, however, that the survival rates for natural pregnancies are along very similar lines to what eventually happened with our embryo adoption: one of our embryos did not implant at all, the second implanted but did not develop, and the third is our now-baby boy. Since natural pregnancy has roughly these same proportions of “success,” IVF and embryo adoption do not unnecessarily threaten life.

Another risk associated with the transfer of multiple embryos is the health of the mother and babies. As IVF procedures have increased over the last thirty years, so has the number of multiple pregnancies – twins, triplets, and more. Such multiple pregnancies have increased risk for the health of the mother and for the children. Consequently, many doctors encourage women carrying multiple babies to undergo “selective reduction,” which means the killing and extraction of one or two babies in order to protect the life of the mother and other babies.

Although IVF has caused an increase in the number twins and triplets, pregnancies of more than that are almost always caused by other, non-IVF reproductive medicine, such as using drugs to stimulate ovulation. As medically caused multiple pregnancies have increased over the past thirty years, so has the ability to care for mothers and babies in those situations.

Especially given this medical development, I cannot think of any reason why selective reduction would be absolutely necessary to protect the life of a mother or baby. It is most often done simply out of a desire to have fewer children than one is carrying. This motivation is morally shocking and repugnant. If human life begins at conception, as has been argued elsewhere, then selective reduction is no different than someone killing a toddler to reduce his family size.

Anyone who undergoes fertility treatment knows that it can result in a multiple pregnancy. If someone is unwilling to carry multiple children, then she should not undergo fertility treatment. It is far better to exercise wisdom before such a choice than to so brutally correct it afterward.

The embryos associated with embryo adoption are often created in morally questionable circumstances. Does embryo adoption encourage this?

Our embryo adoption falls into this category as it involved an egg donation. While my wife and I think these kinds of practices raise serious moral questions, the fact that the three embryos we adopted were created in such circumstances did not bother us for even a moment.

Embryo adoption does not involve theoretical children being possibly created, somewhere and at some point. These embryos are real human beings who already exist, whether we approve of their circumstances or not. No one doing a regular adoption would ask whether a child in an orphanage was conceived under morally pure circumstances before accepting that child. The child exists through no fault of its own, and in both regular and embryo adoptions, our first question should be, what am I going to do about it?

If more couples adopt embryos, does this create a new “market” for them, thus encouraging the very kind of thing embryo adoption seeks to prevent?

That is, my wife and I chose to adopt an embryo instead of trying IVF because we objected to some common IVF practices. If more and more couples – specifically Christian couples, perhaps – adopt embryos, does it encourage clinics to produce more embryos, knowing they have a new market that would adopt them to prevent them from being destroyed?

First, embryo adoption would not likely encourage increased production of embryos. Since clinics’ practices are dictated by an attempt to increase success rates, and since they almost universally do not consider embryos to be human beings, most clinics are already producing as many embryos as they can without regard to who is adopting them.

Second, even if embryo adoption did have some stimulus effect on embryo production, the now-existing embryos are human beings who already exist. Are we to let them perish in the name of discouraging questionable medical practices? The Christians of the first centuries did not ask whether their adoption of the abandoned children of Rome would encourage Roman parents to continue the practice. Instead, they saw human life in jeopardy and acted to preserve it.

Embryo adoption is a similar situation. These embryos are no different than the abandoned children of Rome. In either case, adoption is nothing more than obeying the repeated and strong biblical admonition to care for the fatherless. Further, the two are not mutually exclusive: we can be vocal and active in opposition to objectionable practices while at the same time acting to save life.

There is some degree of urgency about embryo adoption: the longer these children are left frozen, the less likely it is that they will survive. Consequently, the preservation of life should not be left until we have all the ethical issues sorted out. These are human beings who already exist and whose lives are in jeopardy; the biblically appropriate response to such a situation is plain.

At what stage in the embryo adoption process do the embryos become ‘our’ children? And how will they react to their own story – and to that of their siblings who did not survive the embryo adoption?

These questions are more difficult to answer. I do not know at what stage Iain became our son. Was it when he became legally ours – that is, when the property transfer contract was signed – when he was transferred, when he implanted, or at some other point? There is no clear-cut answer, but I think the same is true with any adoption: does the child become a part of that family at the time of the referral, when the paperwork was completed, or when the child is first in his new parents’ arms? I do not know, but I do know that by God’s grace, Iain is my son.

Only time will tell how Iain reacts to his story. We know another family who adopted an embryo several years ago. They were among the first to do so, and their campaigning against embryonic stem cell research has taken them even to the White House. Their son knows his story but seems just like any other boy, though he is still young.

Other kinds of adoption again come to mind. An adopted embryo’s story might be unusual, but it is still an adoption story. There are elements of both loss and grace in every adoption story. In so many ways that reflects the gospel itself, and we believe that is what makes them so beautiful: the fatherless is orphaned no more, what was once lost has been found, and what was once empty has been filled. It is beautiful and glorious.

We hope our son will react to his story in much the same way as other adopted children do and that he will someday come to understand his adoption in light of his adoption into the family of God.

--------------------------------

Embryo adoption is not for everyone. With any such decision, it can be very difficult to sort through all the facts, lay aside all the desires and emotions, and make the wisest, most God-honoring decision possible.

That being said, embryo adoption is the kind of thing that Christians should be doing. We cannot forget that embryos are human beings, made in the image of God, and when human life is threatened, Christians are obligated to intervene. While not everyone can and should adopt an embryo, all Christians should support and encourage those whom God has called to do so.