Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics

, Volume 30, Issue 2, pp 105–129 | Cite as

“Other selves”: moral and legal proposals regarding the personhood of cryopreserved human embryos

Article

Abstract

This essay has two purposes. The first is to argue that our moral duties towards human embryos should be assessed in light of the Golden Rule by asking the normative question, “how would I want to be treated if I were an embryo?” Some reject the proposition “I was an embryo” on the basis that embryos should not be recognized as persons. This essay replies to five common arguments denying the personhood of human embryos: (1) that early human embryos lack ontological individuation; (2) that they are members of the species Homo sapiens but not yet human persons; (3) that the argument for personhood commits the “heap argument” fallacy; (4) that since human procreation in nature is inefficient, human embryos cannot be persons; and (5) the “burning building” scenario proves that all arguments for personhood are irrational or inconsistent. The second purpose is to set forth and criticize in light of the normative judgement defended in part one the present legal situation of cryo-preserved embryos in the U.S. The essay ends by proposing legislative reforms to protect ex utero human embryos.

Keywords

Human embryo Personhood Embryo experimentation Cryo-preserved embryos Frozen embryos Human rights In vitro fertilization Assisted reproductive technology 

References

  1. 1.
    Kant, Immanuel. 1964. Groundwork of the metaphysic of morals, trans. H.J. Paton. New York: Harper Torchbooks. Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Condic, Maureen.L., and Samuel B. Condic. 2005. Defining organisms by organization. The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly 5 (2): 331–353.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Tooley, Michael. 1983. Abortion and infanticide. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ford, Norman. 1988. When did I begin? Conception of the human individual in history, philosophy and science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Silver, Lee. 1998. Re-making Eden: How genetic engineering and cloning will transform the family. New York: Harper Perennial.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Grisez, Germain. 1992. When do people begin? In Abortion: A new generation of Catholic responses, ed. Stephen J. Heaney, 13–18. Braintree: The Pope John Center.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Smith, Barry, and Berit Brogaard. 2003. Sixteen days. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 28: 55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lee, Patrick, and Robert P. George. 2008. Body-self dualism in contemporary ethics and politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    George, Robert P., and Christopher Tollefsen. 2008. Embryo: The case for human life. Doubleday.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gómez-Lobo, Alfonso. 2007. Individuality and human beginnings: A reply to David DeGrazia. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 35 (3): 457–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hurlbut, William B. 2005. Altered nuclear transfer as a morally acceptable means for the procurement of human embryonic stem cells. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 48 (2): 215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Plusa, B., M. Zernicka-Goetz, et al. 2005. The first cleavage of the mouse zygote predicts the blastocyst axis. Nature 434: 391–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Callahan, Daniel. 1970. Abortion: Law, choice, and morality. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Singer, Peter. 1994. Rethinking life and death: The collapse of our traditional ethics. New York: St. Martin’s Press.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Donceel S.J., Joseph. 1970. Immediate animation and delayed hominization. Theological Studies 31: 76–105.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Donceel S.J., Joseph. 1988. A liberal Catholic’s view. In Abortion and Catholicism: The American debate, ed. Thomas Shannon, and Patricia Beattie. Jung, 48–53. New York: Crossroad.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Shannon, Thomas A., and Allan B. Wolter. 1990. Reflections on the moral status of the pre-embryo. Theological Studies 51: 603–636.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Singer, Peter. 1993. Practical ethics, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Aquinas, Thomas. 1981. Summa theologiae, trans. Fathers of the English Dominican Province. Westminster, MD: Christian Classics .Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Austriaco O.P., Nicanor Pier Giorgio. 2002. On static eggs and dynamic embryos: A systems perspective. National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly 2 (4): 659–683.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    May, William E. 2008. Catholic bioethics and the gift of human life. Indiana: Our Sunday Visitor Press.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lee, Patrick. 1997. Abortion and unborn human life. Washington, D.C: The Catholic University of America Press.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Shaffer, D.R. 2002. Developmental psychology, 6th ed. Australia: Wadsworth-Thomson Learning.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Moore, Keith., and T.V.N. Persaud. 2008. The developing human: Clinically oriented embryology. Philadelphia: Saunders/Elsevier.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Colloquium, Ramsey. 1995. The inhuman use of human beings: A statement on embryo research. First Things 49: 17–18.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Working Party of Linacre Center. 1994. In Euthanasia, clinical practice and the law, ed. Luke Gormally. London: The Linacre Centre for Health Care Ethics.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kass, Leon R. 2002. Life, liberty and the defense of dignity: The challenge for bioethics. San Francisco: Encounter Books.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Fogelin, R., and W. Sinnott-Armstrong. 2000. Understanding arguments: An introduction to informal logic, 6th ed. New York: Wadsworth Publishing.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ord, Toby. 2008. The scourge: Moral implications of natural embryo loss. The American Journal of Bioethics 8 (7): 12–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Leridon, Henri. 1977. Human fertility: The basic components. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Boklage, C.E. 1990. Survival probability of human conceptions from fertilization to term. International Journal of Fertility 35 (2): 75–94.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Bailey, Ronald. 2004. Is heaven populated chiefly by the souls of embryos? Reason Online. Available at http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1457282/posts. Accessed 9 February 2009.
  33. 33.
    Annas, George. 1989. A French homunculus in a Tennessee court. Hastings Center Report 19 (6): 20–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Sandel, Michael. 2007. The case against perfection: Ethics in the age of genetic engineering. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Razzell, Peter., and Christine Spence. 2007. The history of infant, child and adult mortality in London, 1550–1850. The London Journal 32 (3): 271–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    John M. Opitz, M.D. 2003. Early embryonic development: An up-to-date account. Transcript of Session 1, President’s Council on Bioethics, Meeting Thursday, January 16, 2003. http://www.bioethics.gov/transcripts/jan03/session1.html. Accessed 5 February 2009.
  37. 37.
    Doerflinger, Richard. 2003. Public comments. President’s council on bioethics. Transcripts of January 17, 2003. http://www.bioethics.gov/transcripts/jan03/public.html. Accessed 9 February 2009.
  38. 38.
    McLaren, Anne. 2007. Commentary: A scientist’s view of the ethics of human embryonic stem cell research. Cell Stem Cell 1: 24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Strong, Carson. 1997. Ethics in reproductive and perinatal medicine: A new framework. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Hinkley, Charles. 2005. Sophie’s choice. Moral conflicts of organ retrieval: A case for constructive pluralism. Amsterdam: Editions Rodopi B.V.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    RAND Law & Health Research Brief. 2003. How many frozen human embryos are available for research? www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9038/index1.html. Accessed 9 February 2009.
  42. 42.
    Casey, Samuel B. 2007. The frozen waiting to be chosen: Human embryo adoption in America. The Christian Lawyer 3 (2): 13.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Forsythe, Clarke D. 2008. Who will fix the Supreme court’s mess? Defending life 2008: A state-by-state legal guide to abortion, bioethics, and end-of-life issues. Americans united for life. http://www.aul.org/Defending_Life. Accessed 9 February 2009.
  44. 44.
    Louisiana Code of Law, RS (Revised Statute) 9 (Civil Code Ancillaries), Chap. 3, “Human Embryos,” §121, §123, §124, §125, §129, enacted 1986.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Casey, Samuel B. 2000. How the law will shape our life and death decisions. In BioEngagement: Making a Christian difference through bioethics today, eds. Nigel Cameron, Scott Daniels, and Barbara White, 143–168. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdemans.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Justice Blackmun, Opinion of the Court. 1973. Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Justice Blackmun, Opinion of the Court. 1973. Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Casey, Samuel B. 2008. For whose sake: The current state of human embryo adoption law. Text distributed at Emerging Issues in Embryo Donation & Adoption. Washington, D.C., May 29–31, 2008. Available from National Embryo Donation Center, 116 Concord Road, Suite 400, Farragut, TN 37934.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    J.B. v. M.D., 783 A.2d 707 (N.J. 2001).Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Ertelt, Steven. 2005. Pro-life groups support Illinois parents’ wrongful embryo death lawsuit, LIFENEWS.COM. Nov. 21, 2005. http://www.lifenews.com/bio1873.html. Accessed 5 January 2009.
  51. 51.
    Genetics & Public Policy Center, Washington, D.C.; information available at www.dnapolicy.org/policy.international.php?countries%5B%5D=17&action=search&go=Go. Accessed 9 February 2009.
  52. 52.
    Turone, Fabio. 2004. Italy to pass new law on assisted reproduction. British Medical Journal 328: v9. doi:10.1136/bmj.328.7430.9-a.
  53. 53.
    Alexander Dorozynski. French doctors criticise new bioethics law. British Medical Journal 309(6968): 1534.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Lansac, Jacques. 1996. French law concerning medically-assisted reproduction. Human Reproduction 11 (9): 1843–1847.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Reuters Report. February 2008. France recognizes personhood of embryos. http://www.bioedge.org/index.php/bioethics/bioethics_article/8048/. Accessed 13 January 2009.
  56. 56.
    Loi fédérale relative à la recherché sur les cellules souches embryonnaires (Swiss Embryonic Research Act), Sect. 1, Article 1, enacted by referendum April 8, 2004.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Belmont Report. http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/belmont.htm. Accessed 13 January 2009.
  58. 58.
    Helsinki Declaration. 1986. In Contemporary issues in bioethics, 2nd ed, eds. Tom L. Beauchamp, and Leroy Walters, 511–512. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Brugger, E. Christian. 2005. In defense of transferring heterologous embryos. National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly 5 (1): 109–111.Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Clark, Katrina. 2006. Who’s your daddy? My father was an anonymous sperm donor. The Washington Post. December 17. B01.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Saint John Vianney Theological SeminaryDenverUSA

Personalised recommendations