Two Letters

These two letters were written in response to the five-part series on stem cell research that I wrote for Christian Renewal magazine.

Letter 1, published in the 28 February edition of Christian Renewal:

Re: Stem cells, the miracles of science, and the joy of parenting: Lessons from barrenness about a controversial issue, Part 1 (volume 25 #07, December 13, 2006).

The subtitle of this article states that it is a controversial issue. It is also a very sensitive and emotional issue. We all know from God’s Word, and many of us from those close to us, how hard it is for a couple to accept the fact when the Lord withholds the blessing of children. It can give much grief and sorrow, loneliness and isolation. It gives rise to many questions. Why us? Not even one? Why not that couple who is unable to handle their many blessings? Why is this young, unmarried girl getting pregnant, but not me? Yet our faithful God works to the good of those who love Him. Many will in faith overcome these times of great sorrow, of questioning. A bowing down in acceptance of God’s will eases the pain, although it will never fully go away and even return later at different times in their life and especially when one of the partners faces death. It is therefore that I, who gave birth to eight healthy children, write with much hesitation this letter. Yet, I do believe that it is necessary to bring some questions with regards to embryo adoption forward.

As Christians, the Douglas couple indeed came to the right conclusion not to use the in-vitro-fertilization (IVF) procedure. IVF procedures destroy human life. Not all embryos will be deemed “good enough”. Less viable embryos will not be transferred. IVF clinics have low success rates. In order to boost that rate most will not transfer only one embryo. This, along with the costs and risks involved, is also the very reason why, when using IVF, they do not fertilize just one egg cell with one sperm. A high number of fertilized eggs increase the success rate. Since more eggs than needed are fertilized you will generate left-over embryos.With the increase in the many Sexual Transmitted Diseases through sinful lifestyles, and because of the trend for couples to delay the starting of a family, infertility rates have risen sky-high. This made the demand for IVF soar. Through pressure of requests for sex selection, savior siblings, pre-implantation screening, designer babies, etc., an even much larger demand might be created in the future. Seemingly there will not be an end to left-over embryos anytime soon.

So, what to do with them? Far be it from me to have an answer to this difficult question. The adopting of an embryo could be very attractive, more so than adopting a born baby or an older child. The mother, although not the natural mother, will still experience pregnancy, childbirth, etc., while the “father” is part of the whole experience as well.

However, I do wonder when we as Christians are making use of this method, aren’t we then participating in the making of a still larger demand for IVF? This demand will soon be noticed by the fertility clinics. These medical clinics are there to help infertile people, sure, but please do not forget that these clinics exist for the business as well, a business which wants to make a profit. These are businesses with links to pharmaceutical and biotech giants, run by business management teams, and with shareholders who would like to see a good return on their investments. This is a billion dollar industry, with on-line marketing advertising “a high success rate”, “free initial consultations”, “money-back guarantee”, and “attentive 24-hour customer service”.

Do we as Christians, in the belief of making proper use of left-over embryos through adoption, help unbelievers continue in their sinful ways of making more? Do we indicate to them that they have found a right solution to the problem of left-over embryos? A solution even Christians agree with, and thereby eliminate the ethical issues of IVF?

Brian writes that three embryos were transferred. This creates other questions. Most IVF clinics transfer 2–4 embryos for best results with the least risks. In cases where four embryos successfully have embedded the couple is most likely offered an embryo or fetal reduction. This is an abortion of the embryos with the weakest heart activity, and preferably done at 8 or 9 weeks of gestation. Pregnancies are then usually reduced to twins and sometimes to singletons. During the 60s and early 70s when the consequences of the sexual revolution were not fully established and the fertility treatments not yet that common it used to be that through normal conception only one in seven thousand couples would receive triplets. Spontaneous quadruplet pregnancies were highly unusual. How do we view the transfer of multiple embryos when we know that multiple pregnancies carry many risks for the mother as well as for the babies? And is it that simple that we can view the expected loss of the adopted embryos which will not implant, as miscarriages?

There are other questions that arise as well and can have far reaching consequences. When do the embryos become “our” children, as soon as the papers are signed and the embryos are still in the dish? Or as soon as they have been inserted into the womb even if they do not embed? After they have implanted in the womb or after they are born? When growing up, how are these children going to react to and deal with the way they were conceived? How will they deal with what happened or is still happening with their siblings who were conceived at the same time? This small sample of questions only scratches the surface of the issue of embryo adoption.

When reading the article we all might get a warm and fuzzy feeling because the desire of receiving a child has been fulfilled. Yet I would caution any couple who is inclined to pursue the route of embryo adoption to put their desires and emotions at a distance before making a decision, however difficult that may be.

For Brian and his wife I am happy that the Lord made all things well and pray that they as parents may teach this child, now born, to walk in all of His ways. And being conceived and born in sin as all of us, that he also may come to see the need for His Lord and Savior and embrace Him.

(signed)
Carman, Manitoba

[I appreciated this writer's knowledge of the facts and understanding of the issues associated with infertility. This letter helped me prepare to write my article, "Embryo Adoption: Questions Answered," which will be published in Christian Renewal and posted here in due course.]


Letter 2, published in the 28 March edition:

Tinkering with creation

I read with great interest the articles by Brian Douglas on “Stem cells the miracles of science, and the joy of parenting”. I had read about IVF and stem cell research but not about adopting frozen embryos.

Looking at the endearing pictures it is hard to believe that anybody’s heart would not turn to mush and think: “it must be right whatever they did.”

Brian Douglas writes about the great dilemma and struggles they had and now he is totally happy with it. Is he?

Brian Douglas agrees that it is the Lord who gives and takes. It is also the Lord who sometimes withholds, be it children, wealth or health.

It is normal to have a great desire to have children but sometimes it is not in the Lord’s plans. What about single women or men who have no spouse and would like to have a family?

We agree that life begins at conception. Would it be alright for a single woman to adopt an embryo? Can we separate marriage, love and children? If something is possible and available does that mean we may make use of it? Can we make adopting a child equal to adopting an embryo?

According to Brian Douglas there are almost half a million frozen embryos in the USA alone, to be disposed of or used for research. Should we all rush off to adopt a few to rescue them?

In the last article again this sweet picture of the sleeping dad and the bright, wide eyed baby. I am glad they are happy, but I cannot help thinking of the bins full of frozen embryos. Is the Lord pleased that they exist? If He is not are we then allowed to use them to make a right from a wrong? Would it perhaps not be better not to create them in the first place and not to tinker with our creation?

(signed)
Vernon, BC

[A part of my response to this second letter, written to the editor of Christian Renewal:

"I appreciate your passing the letter along. The first one was stimulating . . . but I didn't find this second letter to be very well-reasoned. I would be the first to agree that it would be better not to create embryos and then freeze them; if life begins at conception, then it seems to me that adopting an embryo is no different than adopting a child; I have never asserted that single people should adopt embryos, or any other child for that matter -- all kinds of childbearing are governed by the same biblical standards, including embryo adoption. But most of all: while we should certainly never encourage sin, of course we must take advantage of situations in which we can turn wrong into right! That is simply what it means to live out the gospel."]

Stem cell research: How should we then live?

Lessons from barrenness about a controversial issue, part V
Published in Christian Renewal magazine, 28 February 2007

This series of articles has thus far argued that human life begins at conception and is therefore to be valued and protected from that time; it has outlined the implications of that idea for embryonic stem cell research and considered several alternative options for stem cell research that do not threaten human life; and it has corrected some of the disinformation surrounding the politics of stem cell research. In this final article, let us now face the crucial question: what am I to do in light of these things?

At first glance, it would seem that there is little the average person can do to counter the huge scientific and political machine that is embryonic stem cell research. Most of us lack the funds, political influence, or scientific expertise necessary to directly cause a major shift in our culture’s attitude toward this issue. Nevertheless, there are a number of things we can do—indeed, should do—to protect human life even at its earliest stages.

At a personal level

Given the prevalence of infertility, in-vitro fertilization, and serious illness, we all likely know someone who has an interest in the issues surrounding embryonic stem cell research. Because of the current media and political climate, however, few people know that the embryonic stem cell research process necessarily ends with the destruction of human life, and fewer still know about the several equally promising, non-embryonic alternatives.

Many people suffering from serious illness place their hope for successful treatment in stem cell research. Perhaps they have believed the political rhetoric surrounding the issue or are simply unaware of the alternative research methods; consequently, they believe that using embryos for research is essential to finding a successful treatment for their illness. If they were informed about the seldom publicized but equally promising alternatives, one would expect that they would support a practice that both offers hope and protects human life. Perhaps not, but how can they know unless someone is able and willing to tell them?

We all likely know someone who has struggled with infertility or has considered or undergone in-vitro fertilization (IVF). IVF has become commonplace in our society and in Christian circles as well, and I have been surprised at the high infertility rate I have observed within the church. Many who consider doing IVF are unaware of the several possible ethical problems associated with the procedure or are perhaps desperate enough to have a child that they overlook them. Few know that IVF can be done in a way that protects human life, though it is difficult to find a doctor willing to alter his method to comply with the couple’s wishes. Those who have already undergone IVF often struggle with what to do with frozen leftover embryos.

Despite its increasing frequency, embryo adoption is still virtually unknown as an option for infertile or post-IVF couples. I will never forget how strange it sounded when I first heard about it, and I suspect that will be the usual reaction until it becomes more widespread. Embryo adoption raises its own set of questions, which we cannot be properly addressed in this series, but if human life begins at conception, then these frozen embryos—nearly a half million in the United States alone—are human beings in jeopardy of being discarded or used as microscopic guinea pigs.

These issues are highly emotional and difficult for anyone regardless of their background and beliefs. As we struggled through these issues, my wife and I found that even some of our most trustworthy and usually helpful friends had little advice to offer. It is important for all Christians to have thought through controversial issues like stem cell research so that they are able to help the many they will encounter who have not.

At the political level

While few of us are in a position to single-handedly alter the political establishment, most of us by God’s grace have been given a measure of political influence. As Christians we are called to be as informed as we can about these kinds of issues, to inform others about them, to dispell the disinformation that so frequently surrounds them, and to use our influence to promote righteousness.

During our lifetime, we will be called upon to vote on candidates and referendums that will have a direct influence on stem cell research. With politicians and the media largely fixated on political rhetoric, it is left to the individual voters to make others in their sphere of influence aware of the facts. They must labor to keep the humanness of embryos at the front of the discussion surrounding stem cell research: if human life begins at conception, then these are literally life-and-death issues, and we should act and especially vote accordingly.

At the spiritual level

Such weighty matters as these can quickly leave one feeling overwhelmed, but we must never forget that this is a spiritual issue even more than a scientific or political one. The lives of embryos, the health of the diseased, the decisions of politicians, and the mindset of our culture ultimately rest in God’s hands alone, and he will assuredly work out his will in all things. Psalm 115:3 asserts, “Our God is in heaven; he does whatever he pleases.” In Jeremiah 32:27, God himself asks, “I am the LORD, the God of all mankind. Is anything too hard for me?” Luke 1:37 answers, “Nothing is impossible with God!” We even have a most amazing proof that God is able to do anything he desires: he has raised Jesus from the dead as a display of his might (Ephesians 1:19-20).

He is ultimately the only one who can intervene on behalf of those who are in pain or have been abandoned, and according to his Word, he is a God who regularly does so. “For my mother and my father have forsaken me,” says Psalm 27:10, “but the LORD will take me in.” According to Matthew 5:45, God is so generous with mercy that he extends it to even the unjust. 2 Corinthians uses the various forms of the word “comfort” more than any other book in the Bible, emphasizing over and over that he is the “Father of mercies and God of all comfort” (2 Cor 1:3). Perhaps Psalm 113 says it best:

Praise the LORD!
Praise, O servants of the LORD,
Praise the name of the LORD,
Blessed be the name of the LORD
From this time forth and forever.
From the rising of the sun to its setting,
The name of the LORD is to be praised.
The LORD is high above all nations;
His glory is above the heavens.
[Why is the Lord’s name so to be praised, you ask? Read on!]

Who is like the LORD our God,
Who is enthroned on high,
Who humbles Himself to behold
The things that are in heaven and in the earth?
He raises the poor from the dust
And lifts the needy from the ash heap,
To make them sit with princes,
With the princes of His people.
He makes the barren woman abide in the house
As a joyful mother of children.
Praise the LORD! (NASB)

This psalm spoke powerfully to my wife and me while we wrestled with all the things described in this series. To think that the God who is enthroned on high would humble himself to behold the things of heaven and earth; to think that he would take note of the poor, the needy, and the barren, and that he would make them into princes and joyful mothers; and to think that this psalm’s promises are more spiritual than physical! He certainly is to be praised forever and in all nations. My family has witnessed his abundant power and kindness, and in more ways than just infertility and embryo adoption.

It is this God who is ultimately in control of the matter of stem cell research. The scientists, politicians, diseased, and tiniest of embryos are all in his hand. And as his people, let us be diligent in prayer and works, following his merciful example.

Rhetoric and truth: The politics of stem cell research

Lessons from barrenness on a controversial issue, part IV
Published in Christian Renewal magazine, 15 February 2007

Whereas many of the issues discussed in the previous article in this series are widely unknown, this article will examine the most public aspect of this issue: the politics of stem cell research. What is the truth behind the rhetoric, and what stance should I as a Christian take on this matter?

Over the past couple years there has been a tremendous amount of proposed legislation that has been directly or indirectly relevant to the issue of embryonic stem cell research. At the time of this writing, the General Assembly of the state of Indiana is considering two bills that would require abortion providers to inform their patients that life begins at conception and that a fetus can possibly feel pain. Similar legislation was approved in the state House in early 1996, but not in the Senate. According to an Associated Press article published on January 14, Sen. Patricia L. Miller, one of the bills’ authors, is optimistic that this time the law will pass: “I believe that if this gets to the floor for a vote, it will pass both the House and the Senate.”

The “Women’s Health and Human Life Protection Act” was approved by the South Dakota State Legislature early last year; it was repealed by voter referendum, however, in November. This law specified that human life begins at conception and was explicitly intended challenge the constitutionality of the infamous US Supreme Court case, Roe v. Wade.

As one should expect, legislation like these two examples has created a tremendous amount of political controversy. On the one side, pro-life organizations are hailing them as successes and offering their support. Pro-Life Wisconsin even encouraged families to vacation in South Dakota last summer as a political statement in support of the law.

On the other side, pro-choice organizations have lobbied extensively to oppose such legislation. According to a January 14, 2007, Associated Press article, the president and CEO of Planned Parenthood of Indiana opposes that state’s proposed bills because they “intrude on the patient-doctor relationship and impose the religious beliefs of others on pregnant women.” Until the South Dakota law was repealed, the president of the Oglala Sioux tribe pressed to open a Planned Parenthood clinic on tribal land that would perhaps be outside the law’s jurisdiction.

Much is at stake in these kinds of legal clashes, and not just for the long-contested issue of abortion. Because the process of collecting embryonic stem cells destroys embryos, the practice would become illegal if the definition of human life is extended to include embryos.

Nor have these kinds of disputes been isolated to the United States. Canada and most nations in Europe have witnessed heated debate over the legal status of embryos. Although the eighth amendment to the constitution of the Republic of Ireland protects “the right to life of the unborn,” Justice Brian McGovern recently ruled that that protection does not apply to embryos. A Reuters report from November 15 quotes him as saying, “I have come to the conclusion that . . . frozen embryos are not ‘unborn.’ There has been no evidence . . . to establish that it was ever in the mind of the people voting on the Eight Amendment to the Constitution that ‘unborn’ meant anything other than a fetus or child within the womb.”

In the United States, the greatest political controversy concerning stem cell research is the issue of federal funding. In 1994, the National Institutes of Health Human Embryo Research Panel recommended federal funding of embryonic stem cell research using both frozen embryos left over from in-vitro fertilization procedures and embryos created explicitly for research purposes.

Citing “profound ethical and moral questions,” the Clinton administration decided to permit federal funding of research that used existing frozen embryos, but not research that created embryos for the purpose of experimentation. In a December 2, 1994, statement, President Clinton said, “I appreciate the work of the committees that have considered this complex issue and I understand that advances in in-vitro fertilization research and other areas could derive from such work. However, I do not believe that federal funds should be used to support the creation of human embryos for research purposes.”

In 1995, Congress passed and Clinton signed the “Dickey Amendment,” which prohibited federal funding of any research that destroyed an embryo regardless of the embryo’s source. The Dickey Amendment is still the law that governs federal funding of embryonic stem cell research.

In an August 9, 2001, statement, President Bush announced an expansion of federal funding to include research using already existing stem cell lines—situations in which “the life and death decision has already been made.”

In April 2004, 206 members of Congress appealed to the president to loosen the restrictions on federal funding and include more kinds of embryonic stem cell research, and in May 2005, Congress voted to expand federal funding to include research done on embryos left over from in-vitro fertilization procedures. In the first veto of his presidency, Bush vetoed the bill. Similar legislation was passed in July 2006, but President Bush again vetoed it.

Proponents of embryonic stem cell research have often referred to a federal ban on embryonic stem cell research, as if the above-cited government actions have stopped stem cell research altogether and consequently ended the possibility of discovering cures for serious illnesses. Further, they have characterized the opponents of embryonic stem cell research as being inhumane, crushing the hopes of the diseased, and opposing that which is obviously good. However, even a cursory examination of the facts proves this to be more rhetoric than truth.

There is no federal ban on stem cell research, as some have characterized the situation. While there is a ban on using federal funds for most embryonic stem cell research, stem cell research—indeed, even embryonic stem cell research—continues. This research is funded privately, through federal funding of non-embryonic stem cell research, and through federal funding of existing lines of embryonic stem cells, the ones President Bush described as being past the point of a life-and-death decision.

According to the National Institutes of Heath, federal funding of research using existing embryonic stem cell lines has averaged $39 million per year from 2005-2007. Meanwhile, federal funding of the several forms of non-embryonic stem cell research has averaged $200 million per year over that same span of time, for a total of $239 million spent on stem cell research. Clearly stem cell research is not an issue that is being ignored by the federal government, nor can it be said that opposing embryonic stem cell research means dashing the hopes of ill Americans.

Despite these facts, a July 20, 2006, editorial by the LA Times commented on President Bush’s first veto: “[Bush] landed quite a blow against scientific progress and human health. . . . Fertility clinics destroy thousands of embryos every year, byproducts of the in-vitro fertilization process. The bill would have allowed federal funding only for stem cell lines made from embryos that were destined for destruction, not adoption. No lives will be saved by the president's veto, but it's quite possible that many will be lost, victims of complications of diseases that embryonic stem cells could one day cure.”

Such comments are typical of the disinformation that is so common in the political debate surrounding embryonic stem cell research. This kind of argument ignores several essential facts: There is no ban; stem cell research continues. The federal government is still funding it to the amount of $239 million per year, which is more than federal funding for childhood leukemia, cystic fibrosis, emphysema, endometriosis, fibromyalgia, Hodgkin’s disease, and spina bifida combined. And there are ways of doing stem cell research that are as promising as embryonic stem cell research, but do not threaten human life.

Even aside from these facts, it is never right, no matter how beneficial the possible outcome, to take advantage of the destruction of human life. If these embryos are human beings, then using them for research just because they will eventually be discarded is little different than permitting a murder in order to give the victim’s organs to those needing an organ transplant. If a human life is about to be taken, is it not better to attempt to intervene and preserve it instead of attempting to profit from it?

Further, the claim that opponents of embryonic stem cell research are hampering inevitable scientific progress toward medical breakthrough gives false hopes to the ill. While stem cell research undoubtedly offers hope for curing certain illnesses, there is no guarantee that it will provide any cures at all. Even if it does, researchers caution that such progress might be still years or perhaps decades away, meaning that those who are already suffering from serious disease might receive little benefit from stem cell research.

As is common in political debate, the most vulnerable members of society are the most manipulated and used for rhetorical purposes. If there are equally promising alternatives to embryonic stem cell research that do not destroy human life, and if stem cell research is already being given $239 million per year by the federal government, one must wonder: what is the real political issue driving this debate? Why are proponents of embryonic stem cell research willing to invest so much in swaying public opinion when stem cell research is already underway and progressing at an impressive rate? Is it really about infringement of the “patient-doctor relationship,” as the president of Planned Parenthood of Indiana stated it, or is something else related to the humanness of an embryo fueling the politics of stem cell research?