David, Free Church minister in Lochinver and Stoer, says, “This article scratches the surface of the perplexing issues at the heart of embryology research and IVF, as well as looking at the concept of designer babies. It is deliberately not too dogmatic in order to stimulate thought and perhaps more discussion of the issues raised.”

A senior lecturer in Law and Ethics at Edinburgh University has warned that allowing a couple to create a baby by IVF (fertilisation outside the womb) for the purposes of obtaining bone marrow in order to save the life of their dying son could set a dangerous precedent and lead to designer babies. The couple, whose plight was covered recently in the media, have a two year old son who, without a suitable bone marrow transplant, will die. Both parents and children have been tested but found unsuitable. A suitable match has not been found in the bone marrow register. In their desperation to save the life of their child, they have applied to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority for permission to create a baby through IVF for the purpose of obtaining the necessary bone marrow.

The process involved requires the creation of several embryos. A cell would then be taken from each embryo and sent to America for screening to identify which embryo was most suitable. That embryo would then be implanted in the womb of the mother and either prior to or after birth, tissue and blood would be taken from the umbilical cord and used for the bone marrow transplant. Our hearts surely go out to the child concerned and to the parents, but can we say that what is being proposed is acceptable and morally right?

There are several issues here. What is the status of the early embryo? Is creating a baby to save the life of another valid? Does IVF treatment breach the sanctity of life? Is the screening of embryos for genetic disorders and traits tantamount to eugenics? Let us take the first of these questions which is probably the most important of all.

What Is the Status of the Early Embryo?⤒🔗

Legally, limited research for the purposes of infertility treatment and therapeutic cloning is allowed on embryos created by IVF up to 14 days. In normal circumstances, the embryo will have implanted itself into the uterine cavity by the 14th day or earlier. In addition, the primitive streak (the developing brain and nervous system) normally does not appear before that stage. There seems to be then some correspondence between the biology and the law giving the early embryo some protection and rights, though not everyone would agree. Indeed some would go as far as to say the 14 day threshold was chosen simply to allay public fears.

But is this early embryo a human being entitled to full human rights? If so when did it become human: at the four-cell, eight-cell or some later stage of its cellular development? Is the pre-implanted embryo a human being or only once it has implanted itself in the mother’s womb? Indeed we can go further back - do we have a human being once the ovum has been fertilised? This begs the question how you define what it is to be human. For the Christian the answer is found in the doctrine of the image of God. But what is the content of that image? Is it self-consciousness or language and grammar or a built-in moral monitor of right and wrong or what? None of the above views can be applied to the early embryo. It is neither self conscious nor does it have any grammar or sense of right and wrong. Where do we go from here? What we can say is that the early embryo has the capacity and potential to develop into a human being with self consciousness and a capacity to worship. For instance, after fusion the fertilised egg possesses the full genetic coding or blueprint for the emerging individual. But is the argument that the early embryo has the capacity to become human sufficient to accord the early embryo full human rights?

Can we accord the same rights to a potential human that we accord to a person who is fully human? If we imagine a very clever robot that thinks and responds to its environment, we might be tempted to say it has the potential to become human. Should the robot have the same rights as a human being? Or suppose we discovered another race who were not quite human but neither were they simply animals. We might say they have the potential to become human. If we equate the potential to be human with being human, we can argue that from conception we should accord the early embryo full human rights. Theologically, we may want to insist that the image of God is present at conception conferring human dignity on the conceptus. Others, however, may wish to restrict the argument based on potentiality to the time of implantation especially in the light of natural wastage. Some would estimate that between 30-80% of fertilised eggs never make it to the stage of implantation and that therefore only after implantation is there the possibility of development towards being an individual. However, a study conducted by the Medical Research Council at Newcastle-Upon-Tyne with a human reproduction group found that only 8% of pregnancies resulted in spontaneous abortions.

So then, depending at what point we regard the early embryo to have (truly) human potential or status will determine whether we allow in principle research of any kind on them. As Christians we will want to follow the Bible’s teaching and accord the embryo its status as a potential human being and therefore protect its rights. Biologically, there is sufficient evidence that even at the point of fertilisation all the instructions are already present to enable the fertilised ovum to develop into a new individual if left to the course of nature.

In Vitro Fertilisation←⤒🔗

IVF is the creation of embryos outside the womb. This unfortunate couple will have to undergo IVF treatment in order to create not merely an embryo but a suitable embryo. This as stated above involves the creation of several embryos for sampling and screening to determine suitability. What happens to the embryos that are found not to be suitable? Most probably they will be discarded. Thus, while IVF has brought hope and joy to many childless couples, it has been at the cost of the death of so-called surplus embryos. For those who don’t accept that such embryos have human rights there is no problem. But if our biblical view is that life is sacred from conception to death, we will have great unease at the prospect of the death of surplus embryos even though we may not be against IVF in principle. However, IVF right now usually entails research on and the ultimate destruction of surplus embryos. Christians cannot escape the questions raised by IVF treatment. Notwithstanding the agony of childlessness we cannot set aside lightly our respect and duty to protect the most vulnerable in our society including the unborn.

Designer Babies←⤒🔗

It is not just the creation of embryos through IVF that gives cause for concern here but also what the Edinburgh professor, Dr Laurie, described as “a dangerous precedent that could lead to designer babies.” For the cells taken from the embryos will be screened for their suitability for bone marrow matching in order to save the life of the couple’s two year old son. The technique and procedures involved are hugely complex and success is not guaranteed. It will be the first time such a technique has been carried out in the UK. The ethical implications are varied and complex.

Is it acceptable in principle to create a life for the express or primary purpose of saving the life of another? Wasn’t Jesus born for the sake of bringing life to others? Can Jesus in any sense be seen as the divinely designed baby brought into being as the suitable Saviour? Certainly God’s “designing” of the God-Man in order to save us did not entail the destruction of any surplus embryos. However, even if the idea of a designer baby need not be such a nightmare, after all the question still needs to be asked: In what context and for what reason should a child be born? Only within the context of love between the parents concerned and the sexual act as the profound expression of that love ought children to be conceived, is the answer usually given by Christians. The same can be said of God. It was the power of God’s love that resulted in the Christ for others! What is objectionable then to the parents in question bringing another life into being in order to save another life, especially if that life created would be also loved and deeply appreciated? Clearly the cost involved is one objection: the loss of surplus embryos. Another is creating a life as a means to an end. How ethical is it to create an embryo in order to screen it for certain traits or characteristics and on the basis of whether it possesses these traits for the embryo to live or die? This is indeed a dangerous precedent that further undermines the special dignity and status of the human embryo.