Protection of Conscience Project News
Service, not Servitude
A BILL TO BE ENTITLED AN ACT
Relating to health care, to allow health care providers to decline to perform any health care service that violates their conscience and provide remedies for persons who exercise that right and suffer consequences as a result. [Full text]
The Guardian
A woman acted as a surrogate mother for a baby whose biological father is her adult son, a family court judge has been told.
The man, who is in his mid-20s and lives alone, had taken advice from specialist lawyers before embarking on the “process of becoming a father”, Mrs Justice Theis heard. He had looked after the little boy – now seven months old – since birth. Theis has ruled that he can adopt.
Detail of the case emerged in a written ruling by Theis following a family court hearing in London. The judge said she had never encountered such a surrogacy arrangement before.
Sunday Star Times
A woman is pregnant with New Zealand’s first “made-to-order baby,” chosen for its genetic makeup to save its sibling’s life.
The baby was selected from other IVF embryos as a genetic match for its sick older sibling and will donate stem cells at birth.
Critics say the process is a slippery slope towards treating children as commodities.
The cells will be harvested from the baby’s umbilical cord blood and used as a transplant for the older child, which might save it from life-threatening sickle cell anaemia. The parents already have several children, and the sick child is the oldest.
The creation of Baby X comes as outgoing Health Minister Tony Ryall approves the expansion of genetic testing, which will open the door for doctors to select “saviour siblings” to help save existing children sick with certain diseases. . . [Full text]
In 2010 21-year-old Niklas Evans was assaulted outside a bar in Texas. He ended up in a coma and died after 10 days. His heartbroken mother, Missy Evans, requested the hospital to retrieve her son’s sperm so that she could create a grandchild with a surrogate mother. The case was too controversial for American fertility clinics so she ended up travelling to South Africa.
Did Missy and her doctors act ethically in removing sperm from Niklas’s dead body without his consent? This is the question that Anna Smajdor, of the University of East Anglia, tackles in the Journal of Medical Ethics, based on a discussion of some cases which have occurred in England. Like many other bioethicists, she opposes it.
The dead still have interests. The logic of post-mortem sperm retrieval without explicit consent could be extended to many other issues, like organ extraction, exhibition of the body, probate law and so on. Legally speaking, much more than a child is at stake.
The validity of inferred consent is a dangerous principle. “In medicine generally, consent for procedure X cannot be inferred from someone’s previous beliefs about situation Y,” she writes. If men knew what was involved in electro-ejaculation, they might well refuse their consent, even if they did express a wish to have children.
Proxy consent for one’s own benefit is a dangerous principle. She writes:
Relatives can agree to donate a loved one’s tissue, but they cannot demand access to that tissue for themselves. The reasons for this are straightforward. Human tissues and organs are valuable commodities. This means that the bodies of dead and dying patients are vulnerable to exploitation. If the person testifying as to the patient’s wishes and providing proxy consent is alsothe one who stands to gain from the tissue that is made available, there is a clear conflict of interest.
The desire for offspring is not sufficient reason. From a woman’s ardent desire for a child one cannot infer consent. “Couples’ reproductive decisions are not necessarily based on symmetrical and equally held desires … It is risky and unjust to assume that one partner’s reproductive desires can be inferred from those of the other. And if this is the case in the living, it is still more so in the case of the dead or dying, who cannot articulate their dissent.”
Smajdor makes two specific recommendations. First, that the rules for posthumous gamete donation be tightened. Second, that the discretionary authority of the UK’s fertility watchdog, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, be rescinded so that it cannot permit the export of gametes obtained without consent.
This article is published by and BioEdge.org under a Creative Commons licence. You may republish it or translate it free of charge with attribution for non-commercial purposes following these guidelines. If you teach at a university we ask that your department make a donation to Bioedge. Commercial media must contact us for permission and fees. Some articles on this site are published under different terms.
The Economist
THE scene had a melodramatic touch: two stone tablets with an engraved Declaration of Faith by Polish doctors who recognise “the primacy of God’s laws over human laws” in medicine were carried last month to a sanctuary in Częstochowa, in the south of Poland. The gesture was made out of gratitude for the canonisation of the Polish pope, John Paul II. It was the initiative of a physician and personal friend of the late pope, Wanda Półtawska.
The first 3,000 signatories of the declaration thereby announced that they will not violate the Ten Commandments by playing a part in abortion, birth control, in-vitro fertilisation or euthanasia. Abortion until the 25th week of pregnancy is legal in Poland if the mother’s life is in grave danger, the foetus is known to have severe birth defects or the pregnancy is a result of rape or incest.
Poland has 377,000 doctors and nurses so the signatories represent barely 1% of the medical profession. And among them are many students, dozens of dentists, four balneologists and a dance therapist (number 1805 on the leaked list). . . . [Full text]