To combat religious objections to procreative technologies, supporters said assisting infertile couples who wanted children was noble and within God’s teachings. On the other hand, religious opponents argued since human life begins at conception, the accidental but inevitable destruction of some embryos during some fertility treatments was murder. Even fertility specialists were inconsistent in their portrayals of embryos. On one hand, embryologists explained in the magazines that embryos are “just a group of cells.” On the other hand, Dr. Mason Andrew’s , Eastern Virginia Medical School chief of obstetrics and gynecology, commented “I’d say seeing the picture of that four-cell embryo that went into Judy Carr’s uterus is a most inspiring religious experience” (#3011, People, 1982). As I
discussed earlier in this chapter, fertility specialists, as a whole, purposely distanced themselves from public debates regarding personhood or defining when life begins in order not to offend any of their patients. Because the fertility specialists often dictated media’s interest in infertility, few stories appeared in mainstream magazines focusing on embryos, particularly the complexities involved with excess frozen embryos.
As the number of frozen embryos grew exponentially in the 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s, eventually resulting in over a half million by 2010, Christian magazines devoted over a dozen articles exclusively to embryos. The issue of “when does personhood begin?” was a common theme within these popular Christian publications. Robert White summarized for his article in America (#4073, 1996):
There is really only one essential and ethical question that arises in regard to the use of the human embryo. Does the embryo, even a single fertilized cell, the zygote, represent the true beginning of human life in all of its dimensions, including the spiritual? (#4073, America, 1996) The Catholic Church maintained a strong stance that vitro fertilization was tantamount to abortion in that when sperm and egg unite, a fertilized egg or embryo must be awarded the unconditional respect that is morally due to the human being. In the 1980s, Pope John Paul II, denounced virtually all the rapidly spreading methods of “artificial procreations,” deeming them to be violations of both the rights of man and the laws of God:
A child must never be desired or conceived as the product of an intervention of medical or biological techniques; this would be equivalent to reducing him to an object of scientific technology. (#3050, America, 1987)
According to the Christian media (#5073, Christianity Today, 2004; #5072, Christianity Today, 2004) , in vitro fertilization undermined the value of human life and paved the way for using embryos as raw material for biotechnology sparking similar conversations about stem cell research. Reports of anti- stem cell research appeared side-by-side mentions of infertility. For instance, the government banned federal funded laboratories from embryo research, including extra cryopreserved embryos (some of which had already been frozen for decades as a result of infertility treatments), simply because embryos
may be destroyed regardless of their viability (#5005, Christianity Today, 2000). Superman star Christopher Reeve—who was paralyzed in 1995—“was horrified by the waste, arguing it is a pity because these embryos sitting in fertility clinics which contain some perfectly good stem cells, could be put to good use.” Reeves asked, it is more ethical for a woman to donate unused embryos that will never become human beings or let them be tossed away as so much garbage when they could help save thousands of lives (#5073, Christianity Today, 2004)? Still, Christian leaders believed using embryos was too close to “playing God” which they repudiated whenever the issue was discussed (#5005, Christianity Today, 2000; #5006, America, 2000). However, based on my analysis illustrating the God-complex perpetuated by the fertility specialists themselves, this was actually not a huge stretch to question their participation in “playing God.”
Readers shared concerns about embryos with the secular media as well. Families were
conflicted--what should be done with frozen embryos? The multibillion dollar infertility industry pushed freezing embryos in order to grow their business. Many infertility patients created as many embryos as possible freezing them for to be transferred later. The fertility specialists made clear in their media interviews that frozen embryos were becoming a major concern with very few reasonable solutions (#3067, Time, 1989; #3053, Life, 1987). Basically, only four choices existed for patients: they could have their keep their embryos frozen indefinitely (costing about $500-$1,000 per year for storage costs), donate them to another couple, offer them for experimentation, or destroy them. Fertility specialists explained that lack of education, government restrictions and high costs prohibited them from offering other options. Physicians encouraged patients to advocate the government on their own for more choices, especially regarding research and embryo donation. In reality, as I discussed previously in this chapter, patients had no power and were completely dependent on doctors, business, and government for their options. Still, fertility specialists tried to remove themselves from this decision and any
responsibility. However, their vague recommendations only delayed patients from having to make an inevitable choice about what to do with frozen embryos.
Another major debate in popular media regarding embryos was ownership of the embryos. Who should made decisions on behalf of embryos? Within a little over ten years after the first successful in vitro fertilization, Time, through a series of articles on this specific topic, (#3069, 1986; #3069, 1989; #3068, 1989) estimated with the exponential growth of frozen embryos, this dilemma would continue. Time (#3069, 1986) presented Risa and Steven York who participated in an in vitro fertilization program operated by the Howard and Georgeanna Jones Institute for Reproductive Medicine in Norfolk, Virginia. After three failed cycles, the Yorks moved from New Jersey to California and asked the Institute to ship their remaining frozen embryo to a comparable clinic in Los Angles. Much to the couple’s surprise, the Jones Institute refused their request arguing that the consent agreement signed by the Yorks gave them no rights to the embryo outside Jones’ jurisdiction. Moreover, a statute in Louisiana defined a frozen embryo as a juridical person, meaning it has legal status and can only be represented by a lawyer. In hopes of mitigating additional problems, the American Association of Tissue Banks began drafting rules for the handling and disposition of frozen embryos. However, most ethicists interviewed for these articles (#3069, Time, 1986; #3069, Time, 1989; #3068, Time, 1989) agreed the couple’s proprietary right to their embryos is not absolute regardless of new guidelines or laws.
Custody battles became commonplace in the mainstream media as well, bringing more attention to the legal status of embryos. In 1993, Time (#4109, 1997) told the story of Maureen Cass who was infertile due to DES exposure. Cass sued her ex-husband over embryos created after failing to conceive through numerous cycles of IVF costing them a total of $75,000 over five years. Maureen argued Steven, having helped conceive the embryos, has no right to “unconceive” them. New York judge, Angelo Roncallo, agreed basing his decision on the U.S. Supreme Court’s holding that “a woman,
and not her husband, has the right to decide whether or not to get an abortion as it is the woman who physically bears the child and who is more directly and immediately affected by the pregnancy (#4109, Time, 1997). Steven’s attorney responded that the right to control her own body should not extend to a can of liquid nitrogen. A leading authority in the field of reproductive rights, University of Texas law professor John A. Robertson, suggested that a spouse should not be forced into procreating unless the frozen embryos represent the other spouse’s last chance for parenthood (#4069, People, 1998).
With still no guidelines as to embryos more than a decade later, lawsuits among parents arguing about embryo “custody” continued to be highlighted in the media. People (#5143, 2007) included human interest stories, such as Natallie Evans who was diagnosed with a pre-cancerous condition that threatened her ovaries and could destroy the chances of having a bay. As a result, she visited a fertility clinic with her fiancé Howard Johnston and created embryos and froze them to use later “when—and if—she survived her cancer.” Shortly thereafter, Evans and Johnston split up. Evans received a letter from the fertility clinic saying Johnston wanted the frozen embryos they created together destroyed. Johnson claimed he removed his consent because he did not want a child born with whom he was not involved. The court ruled in Johnson’s favor finding his decision to not have a genetically related child with her outweighed her desire to be a mother.
Embryos remained biggest controversy related to procreative technologies in the media, inviting the most criticism and questioning ethics and morals within popular magazines. However, it was not just a political or moral issue. Many families, regardless of political leanings, did not know what to do about their “left-over” embryos. In general, there were no good solutions or anyone. Additionally, a lack of education about how to make a decision and an inconsistency as to what people usually do about this issue existed. As a result, most people just put off the decision indefinitely and continued paying the clinics thousands of dollars per year for storage. Given the vast amount of frozen embryos and the length of time many of families were been in limbo about this, time became a very real concern in that
eventually someone would be forced to make a decision, most likely based on political gain. In fact, pending legislation and the continued silence of the fertility field on this issue brought this reality closer each year.