On the new Secular Right
blog, Heather Mac Donald comments on the cost of Nadya Suleman’s
excessive fertility:
Meanwhile, the backlash against Nadya Suleman, the mother of
six artificially-conceived children who gave birth to another
eight two weeks ago continues. The nine-week
premature octoplet’s delivery required 46 doctors, nurses, and
assistants; in twelve days, their care has likely cost at least
$300,000 and counting. Here’s a possible rule of thumb:
If you are a radical pro-lifer and believe that every
artificially-conceived embryo must be brought to term, no
fertility treatments for you unless you are prepared to
bankroll all the resulting medical costs
yourself. Either accept your God-given condition
of infertility or accept a human condition on the man-made
science for overcoming that infertility: use within reason.
[emphasis added]
On the most basic level this appeal to reason seems entirely
reasonable, though I think the wording fails to convey what Mac
Donald intends. The same form could be stated: “If you are a
woman and believe that every pregnancy must be brought to term,
no sex for you unless you are prepared to bankroll all the
resulting medical costs.” But presumably Mac Donald doesn’t have
a problem with woman having sex, getting pregnant, or allowing
their medical insurance to pick up the tab for obstetric
procedures.
Still, Mac Donald’s point is one that “radical pro-lifers” (like
me) should find unobjectionable: reproductive technologies should
be used within reason.
Naturally, we shouldn’t dismiss the pain and suffering caused by
infertility, a problem that affects thousands of potential
families. (After one year of sexual relations, 15% of American
couples are unable to conceive a child.) But the cost of
fertility treatments– both financially and morally – should be
borne primarily by the potential parents.
IVF is an extremely expensive procedure, often costing between
$10,000-30,000 per treatment, and the likelihood of success is
dismally low. Even the best of techniques offers less than a 50%
chance that a live birth will occur. Because of these obstacles,
couples may be tempted to set aside the ethical concerns in order
to take steps — such as the creation of multipile embryos —
that increase the chances of fulfilling their desire for a child.
But there are ethically acceptable ways to use such technology.
Indeed, when all the possible configurations and therapies are
considered, there are at least
38 ways to make a baby. Some methods, such as gamete
intrafallopian transfer (GIFT), zygote intrafallopian transfer
(ZIFT), intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI), and even in
vitro fertilization, do not even require the creation of multiple
embryos, which are often either frozen, discarded, or
“selectively reduced.”
Infertile couples should never be willing to unnecessarily
sacrifice an innocent human life, even for such a noble purpose
as expanding their family. The extra expense required for ethical
fertility treatments may be substantial or even prohibitive. But
the cost of destroying a human life is even higher.
