Human Embryos Custody Case

The decision in a Tennessee court does not answer any of the real medical-legal questions raised by the lawsuit, and suggests that a more broad-minded approach needs to be taken when dealing with ethical issues in this age of advanced technology.

Having decided that the embryos are human beings, with a right to live, who will decide which embryo has a greater right? Or should Ms. Davis be forced to attempt to bear all seven embryos, since they all have a “right-to-life”? Since she and her ex-husband took responsibility to create this “human life,” are they not also responsible for murder when the remaining embryos are thrown away or left in a frozen state after Ms. Davis has conceived as many children as she wants?

It seems that the only logical decision that can follow from the judge’s ruling that the embryos have a right to live, is that the entire process of cryopreservation should be illegal, since it inevitably creates a situation whereby embryos must be killed.

Indeed, the cryopreservation program, in which multiple eggs are harvested from a woman’s ovaries, inseminated in a laboratory by a man’s sperm, and then frozen for future implantation into the uterus, is a perfect example of our blind acceptance of new technology. We have lived for the past century in an age where technological advancement has brought countless social benefits, but we can no longer unquestioningly accept technology as inherently good.

BRAD FANESTIL

Venice