Healthy three-parent babies: but does the end justify the means?

Recently, British media celebrated the birth of eight babies using a groundbreaking genetic technique designed to prevent the transmission of certain hereditary conditions. Headlines hailed it as an unqualified success: eight healthy children, spared the prospect of devastating illness. But this achievement comes at a profound moral cost, one that has been almost entirely absent from the public conversation: the new technique involves the destruction of human life.

The method, known as mitochondrial replacement therapy (MRT), uses genetic material from three people. In 2015, the UK became the first country to legalise it, with the stated aim of preventing maternal mitochondrial diseases, rare but potentially fatal disorders caused by faulty mitochondria.

Mitochondria are tiny structures in our cells that we inherit from our mothers. In MRT, scientists use two fertilised human eggs: one from the intending parents, which carries defective mitochondria, and one from a donor woman with healthy mitochondria. The nuclear DNA, which determines personal traits like appearance, personality, and height, is removed from the parents’ fertilised egg and transferred into the donor’s fertilised egg, after the donor egg’s own nucleus has been removed and destroyed. The resulting embryo has nuclear DNA from the mother and father, and a small amount (less than 1%) of mitochondrial DNA from the donor.

Although this might appear to be a compassionate use of science to prevent suffering, it involves practices that are gravely unethical.

First and foremost, the process requires the creation and destruction of multiple human embryos. Each embryo is a human being with inherent dignity and the right to life from the moment of conception. Discarding or experimenting upon embryos is, therefore, morally unacceptable.

Secondly, the technique entails altering the DNA in such a way that changes will be passed on to future generations (germline genetic modification). This raises profound moral questions. Once we begin to manipulate the genetic makeup of human beings at the embryonic level, where do we draw the line?

For this reason, mitochondrial replacement therapy is banned in countries such as the US, Germany, France, Italy. In Ireland, the Assisted Human Reproduction Act 2024 includes a clear ban on mitochondrial replacement, but the Act is not yet commenced.

Although the term “three-parent baby” is often used in the media, it is a bit inaccurate. Personal genetic characteristics like appearance, personality, height, eye colour, or intelligence are not passed on through mitochondria. Yet mitochondrial replacement therapy still introduces a third genetic contributor, raising complicated ethical and legal questions about parenthood.

Medical science must always serve the integral good of the human person, respecting both physical life and moral law. While the desire to prevent illness is good and understandable, not every technologically possible solution is morally permissible. The ends do not justify the means, especially when those means involve the destruction of human lives, however early in development.

Moreover, these new techniques reflect a worrying trend in modern biotechnology: reducing human beings to a set of biological components to be manipulated, optimised, or discarded. Such a view undermines the sanctity of life and the unique, irreplaceable value of each person.

Analysis Stock photo by Vecteezy

Government’s green light for embryo research goes under the radar

 

The Assisted Human Reproduction (AHR) Bill, which has been passed by the Oireachtas this week, has sparked some debate primarily around the issue of surrogacy. However, the Bill raises numerous other ethical issues that merit urgent attention, particularly with regard to embryo research and screening.

Although the AHR Bill prohibits the creation of embryos specifically for research purposes, it allows the usage of ‘spare’ embryos created during in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatments but not used for implantation. These surplus embryos can be utilised for research and experimentation aimed at improving IVF procedures, the Bill says. This is a blatant instrumentalisation of human beings at the earliest stage of their lives, failing to accord them the dignity they deserve.

While the Assisted Human Reproduction Bill prohibits cloning and genetic manipulation that could affect future generations (germline modification), it permits various other forms of research on human embryos for ‘medical’ purposes, further dehumanising them.

The Bill also permits pre-implantation genetic screening (PGS) and diagnosis (PGD). These processes allow embryos to be screened for genetic or chromosomal anomalies, such as Down Syndrome. Embryos identified as carrying these anomalies can be discarded, with only those deemed free from certain disorders being selected and used for implantation. This practice is profoundly immoral. The desire for healthy children does not justify the destruction of embryos considered “defective”. This process is a form of eugenics, promoting the selection of the fittest embryos and the destruction of those who do not meet certain criteria.

As disability rights advocates have rightly argued, selecting against embryos with specific genetic conditions devalues the lives of individuals living with those conditions, perpetuating negative stereotypes and discrimination. Such practices reinforce societal biases against people with disabilities or anomalous conditions.

Another contentious issue addressed by the Bill is that of the sex selection of embryos. While the Bill generally prohibits sex selection, it allows exceptions in cases where there is a risk of a child being born with a genetic disease that affects only one sex, or one sex more than another. What is presented as a medical justification is, in reality, another form of eugenics. Here again, it is not the abnormal condition that is addressed and dismissed, but the person who carries it. Sex selection is not a cure or a preventive treatment; instead, the Bill allows the selection of healthy human beings at their embryonic stage and the destruction of the defective ones.

But we wonder how clinics in will police the law against the sex selection of healthy embryos. If the commissioning adults are not allowed to request it, then will the clinic itself implant embryos without knowing their sex? Or will there, in fact, be a nod and wink between the clinic and the couple which will result in the sex selection of embryos in practice? We might never know.

In summary, while the AHR Bill aims to regulate and advance assisted human reproduction technologies, it raises severe ethical concerns. These include the potential for eugenic practices, the devaluation of embryonic lives with disabilities, the implications of sex selection, and the ethical considerations surrounding embryo research. Disturbingly, none of these concerns have been adequately discussed in the Oireachtas so far.

Government doubles down on what amounts to commercial surrogacy

A Bill that will allow surrogacy is currently being debated in the Seanad as it reaches the final stages of approval. The Government tells us it will not recognise commercial surrogacy, but in fact it will do so by allowing big payments to surrogate mothers under the heading “reasonable expenses”.

The Assisted Human Reproduction Bill 2022 addresses numerous issues related to artificial reproduction, such as IVF and embryo experimentation, which have deep ethical problems. However, another controversial aspect of the Bill relates to commercial surrogacy, which is banned in all EU countries.

In a previous blog, we raised serious concerns about an earlier draft of the Bill. With its progress in the Oireachtas, some approved amendments have exacerbated these issues, making the situation even worse.

An older version of the Bill would have banned payment of agencies or professionals who liaise with the surrogate mothers and organise the financial transactions with the commissioning parent(s).

The big change in the new version of the law is that while payment of intermediaries is still banned in Ireland, it allows for the payment of intermediaries overseas.

This double standard was criticised by a document of the Attorney General's office in 2022 but the Minister for Health, Stephen Donnelly, has ignored these warnings.

By permitting the payment of intermediaries abroad, the amended Bill is further endorsing a disguised form of commercial surrogacy, as these intermediaries often charge premium rates for their services.

The Bill purports to ban commercial surrogacy within the state, however, a closer examination reveals a loophole-laden framework that permits a multitude of “reasonable expenses” effectively transforming what is claimed to be altruistic surrogacy into a commercial endeavour under a different guise. 

The scope of what constitutes “reasonable expenses” has been expanded in the new version of the Bill and includes numerous categories that significantly blur the line between altruistic and commercial surrogacy.

First, the Bill permits compensation for any loss of income the surrogate mother might incur due to her pregnancy. This can include a period of up to six months around the time of birth. If you are in a demanding, but low-paid job on casual hours and you are offered what amounts to a steady wage for up to six months, how is this not commercial, in effect? The period can be extended to 12 months if the surrogate is not able to work because of medical complications. 

In practical terms, this provision means that a surrogate could receive a substantial sum if she has a well-paying job, thereby creating a financial incentive rather than merely covering a loss. 

In the amended version of the Bill, the definition of loss of income has been expanded to include any “net loss” and this applies not only the surrogate mother but also the woman who donates the eggs.

Moreover, the Bill allows for the reimbursement of pre-natal and post-natal medical expenses. The extent of these expenses can be substantial, encompassing everything from routine check-ups to more complex medical treatments and procedures. Given the high costs associated with reproductive medicine, these reimbursements alone could amount to significant sums.

Travel and accommodation expenses related to medical appointments and the birth process are covered by “reasonable expenses”. This provision opens the door to potential exploitation. For instance, surrogates living far from top-tier medical facilities could claim extensive travel expenses, including frequent trips and extended stays in comfortable accommodations, all funded by the intending parents.

The Bill includes allowances for various supportive services. Surrogates can be reimbursed for housekeeping or childcare services if they are unable to perform these tasks due to their pregnancy. Maternity clothing and pregnancy aids are similarly covered, further increasing the financial support provided to the surrogate.

Counselling services, both legal and psychological, are another category of “reasonable expenses”. The surrogate mother and intending parents must receive independent legal advice, the costs of which are to be borne by the intending parents. These legal fees can be quite high, especially if involving extensive consultations or complex legal procedures. In practice, not only the surrogate mother but many other professionals involved in the surrogacy arrangement will be compensated under the broad heading of “reasonable expenses”.

The cumulative effect of these allowances is that the surrogate mother could receive a considerable amount of money. This comprehensive financial coverage effectively transforms surrogacy arrangements that are presented as purely altruistic into something that provides significant financial benefits to the surrogate mother. (In Canada, a surrogate mother can receive between $18,000 and $35,000, which is €12,000 to €24,000.)

In conclusion, while the Bill claims to ban commercial surrogacy, it does nothing of the sort in practice as it endorses commercial surrogacywhen it happens abroad. Moreover, its broad definition of reasonable expenses, when it happens in Ireland, creates a framework that is equivalent to commercial surrogacy in practice.

The Government is taking us for fools and the latest version of the Bill is even worse than the older version in this regard.

Oireachtas Committee told harsh facts of life about commercial surrogacy

Officials from three Government Departments have expressed great doubt about the possibility of legislating for the recognition of international commercial surrogacy contracts in Ireland. Besides practical difficulties, it would create a double standard if commercial surrogacy, which is banned here in Ireland, is tolerated when it happens abroad.

The Joint Oireachtas Committee on international commercial surrogacy, which had its first hearing last week, is addressing two main issues: the retrospective recognition of parentage for children who have already been born abroad from a surrogate mother, and the legal status of future arrangements.

The Committee wondered whether something should be added to the Assisted Human Reproduction (AHR) Bill that is currently under scrutiny in the Oireachtas, or if a separate piece of legislation is needed instead. Bar Senator Sharon Keogan, no-one on the Committee appears to be against commercial surrogacy in principle despite that the fact in Europe only Ukraine, Belarus and Russia permit it. Other countries regard it as womb-renting.

Officials from the three Departments (Justice, Health and Children) which appeared before the Committee reminded members of these facts. They said that no other country regulates surrogacy abroad as the State has no control and cannot legislate on what happens outside its jurisdiction. 

A representative from the Department of Children also told the politicians that he was “not aware of any EU Member State which has legislated specifically for their own citizens engaging in surrogacy in another jurisdiction. Rather, the norm appears to be that existing family law is utilised and adapted to deal with specific cases.”

This is also what currently happens in Ireland, but the Committee wants to create an easy pathway for surrogacy abroad.

The same representative warned that “international commercial surrogacy does raise concerns about the commodification of children, exploitation of women in poorer countries, the risk of child trafficking and the child’s right to know their identity.”

The Department of Health representatives said that they are “primarily concerned to ensure that any proposals that may emerge do not undermine the principles of the policy in respect of domestic surrogacy as reflected in the Assisted Human Reproduction Bill, or create a conflicting policy landscape”, whereby we ban commercial surrogacy here, but recognise it overseas.

The same safeguards to prevent the exploitation of women and children, and even of the commissioning couples, should be in place abroad as domestically but this is almost impossible to achieve. "How do you get assurance that standards are being applied?", asked Andrew Munro from the Department of Justice.

Some members of the Committee suggested a solution along the lines of international adoptions, where Irish couples can adopt children only from countries that guarantee good practice. But, unlike with adoption, there is no international convention on surrogacy, there is no international framework to rely on.

Speaking about surrogacy, Andrew Munro from the Department of Justice told the Committee: “We have seen some very difficult examples in the past where … a lot of people got exploited by bad actors, where the egg that was purportedly supplied by a purported donor was not the egg. The child given to the intending parents had no genetic link”.

He added there had been cases where the surrogate mother was “spirited away over a border immediately after birth,” or a birth certificate provided by local authorities falsely "named the intending father as father despite the child having none of his genetic material”.

Conor O’Mahony, Special Rapporteur on Child Protection, also spoke to the Committee, but he came down more on the side of facilitating commercial surrogacy.  He criticised the Government for ignoring his report on children’s rights in the context of surrogacy. If enacted without considerable amendments, he claimed, the Bill will be against the best interest of children in many ways.

Unlike the officials from the various Government Departments, Professor O’Mahony believes that international surrogacy can be regulated in the AHR Bill. He proposes that intending parents should “apply to the High Court for parentage and parental responsibility, as well as a grant of nationality and citizenship to the child, subject to satisfying a range of prescribed criteria.” He didn't clarified if the prescribed criteria should be the same as for domestic surrogacy.

This is probably what the Committee will recommend but it will create tension with the Government as it will delay the Assisted Human Reproduction Bill and its implementation, aside from the many inherent and unavoidable ethical problems created by commercial surrogacy.

New assisted reproduction legislation will allow use of gametes from deceased person

The new assisted reproduction legislation will allow the use of sperm or eggs from a deceased person. Fatherless children will be created intentionally.

The Irish government has approved the publication of the Assisted Human Reproduction Bill 2022 that will legislate for issues such as IVF, gametes donation, surrogacy.

The Bill is extremely problematic from an ethical point of view. For instance, it provides for posthumous assisted reproduction, which is the use of gametes (sperm or eggs) of a deceased person.

The final text of the Bill is not available yet but, based the previous draft, posthumous assisted reproduction will be permitted if a person has consented to use his sperm or her eggs when dead.

The law will also allow those gametes to be retrieved from the body of the dead person, if necessary, when the person has consented to it in advance.

Only the surviving partner of the deceased person can use the gamete, according to the Bill, and only after one year from the death.

This raises important ethical question. (It also complicates and delays the administration of estates on death https://www.irishexaminer.com/business/arid-20457958.html )

How is it in the interest of children to be deliberately conceived when their father or mother is already dead? The whole Bill favours and accommodates the desires of the adults over the child’s best interest.

What is even more shocking is that the law permits the use of the gametes of a dead person together with gametes coming from a sperm donor or an egg donor.

This means that not only one of the parents is already dead before the child is even conceived, but the child will be separated also by the other genetic parent. So, it will be legal for someone who is not even genetically related to the child to decide to create an orphan. How can this be in the best interest of the child?

No one should have a right to deliberately generate an orphan and this the reason why posthumous assisted reproduction is banned in many European countries such as France, Germany, Italy, Sweden, Finland, Hungary.

But Ireland has taken the most liberal and adult-centred approach, avoiding any debate on the morality of such arrangements.

The same could be said about many other provisions of this new law, such as surrogacy for example.

According to the new law, the person who uses the gametes of her deceased partner must be a woman, as she has to carry the pregnancy.  

This means that this provision will be used mainly by women using their dead partner’s sperm but nothing prevents a woman in a lesbian relationship from using the eggs of her deceased partner and carry the pregnancy herself. In this way, the resulting child will be denied both biological parents and will be intentionally created and brought up by someone with whom she, or he, has no genetic connection.

Again, how is this in the best interest of a child? 

Video: A harsh light is shone over the fertility industry

 

New genetic selection techniques will facilitate eugenics

The genetic selection of human embryos is reaching new levels of sophistication  and depravity with the development of a technique called ‘polygenic screening’, based on statistical scores. Eugenics, which is breeding out the ‘defective’, is deepening its grip on our societies.

The new method is a step above current screening processes that can detect conditions like Down Syndrome.

Last year, the embryo of baby girl Aurea was chosen over other embryos who had more chance of developing certain medical conditions in the future, using a “polygenic risk score”.

The screening of human embryos artificially created in laboratory through IVF is quite common. 

Tests are offered for genetic or chromosomal abnormalities, such as Down Syndrome, and only the unaffected embryos are implanted in the womb, while the other are destroyed. 

When similar screening tests are performed during pregnancies, they generally lead to abortion. 

This is a clear form of human selection on the basis of health characteristics, also known as eugenics. 

So far, those tests were focusing on diseases caused by a single gene, but some conditions are triggered by the interaction of many genes. 

A new technique based on “polygenic risk scores” (PRS), which has been employed for the first time with success, tests the presence of many genes. 

In simple words, the new test analyses the gene-sequency of an individual and estimates the probability that some conditions will develop later in life. 

As the link between some genes and certain medical conditions is only probabilistic, these new techniques are based on statistical data and they have only become possible in very recent years with the development of large databases of genetic information.

As it develops, preimplantation genetic testing is likely to be able to predict not only health, but also other characteristics related to our genes, such as intelligence, psychological traits, personality types, learning disabilities, height, etc.

Commissioning couples, but also single individuals, will be able to pick any physical or psychological trait linked to genetic and to ‘order’ their ideal child. In a society where choice is everything, who will stop them?

This is one further step down an extremely unethical path that aims at eliminating imperfect human beings. It is immoral not only because it destroys humans at embryonic stage, but also because it perpetuates the false assumption that some lives are not worth living when they have certain unwanted characteristics.

The defenders of these techniques are quite honest about the eugenicist nature of genetic selection.

Oxford university philosopher Julian Savulescu proposes a “welfarist model” of polygenic scores that select for traits associated with well-being.

He writes: “[Tests] to select against genetic conditions … such as Down Syndrome, are common and are even publicly funded, implying not only assent, but active support for allowing prospective parents to select against these conditions. Selection on the basis of polygenetic scores, if it is well correlated and causally linked to a welfare threshold with important bearing on the future’s child well-being is ethically equivalent to these. Indeed, allowing selection on the basis of only some genetic conditions may be discriminatory. It would be consistent with an anti-eugenic stance to reject all form of selection.”

Savulescu has no problem with eugenics, as long as “there is no broad social goal or coercion employed”.

Do we really need to wait until it becomes imposed by the state before we realise how immoral eugenic?

---

(A shorter version of this article was published here)

A harsh light is shone on the fertility industry

Historically speaking, the fertility industry has often been like the Wild West, totally unregulated with doctors often abusing their power and the hopes of people to bring children into the world with little or no knowledge of their natural origins.

The Guardian newspaper has a long article which lists many of the abuses. It is a searing read. Among other things, it catalogues doctors who used their own sperm to impregnate women seeking to conceive without informing them of its origin.  Sometimes the sperm of men who gave samples for testing was used in the IVF process with other couples without ever telling them.

The article tells the story of a British fertility clinic led by an obstetrician who secretly used the sperm of her own husband, generating at least 600 children. It mentions other similar cases where the doctors running such clinics fathered dozens of babies, deceiving the couples who were seeking help to conceive.

We learn about “Catherine” who found her biological father using a DNA matching website. He was shocked to find he was her father because he never donated sperm to the clinic.  He and his wife had difficulty in conceiving and went to the doctor only for a fertility check which involved him leaving a sample. It is possible that from his stolen sperm dozens of children have been produced by the clinic and obviously those people are not aware of their origin.

“They were playing with people’s lives at the clinic,” Catherine says. “I have been cheated. My biological father has been cheated. My parents have been cheated.”

The article also interviews a man who donate regularly to the clinic and is likely to have fathered hundreds of children but he hasn’t put his DNA on a database so that he can be found.  “At the time, I don’t think any of us gave it a thought. The prime purpose was getting money”, he said.

Gamete donation was anonymous in the UK until 2002 when Dr Joanna Rose, also who features in the article, won a landmark case in the British courts that brought an end to this practice.

Dr Rose, who is still trying to identify her biological father, is a campaigner for people conceived from donation and she has addressed the Iona Institute in the past.

In Ireland, the fertility industry is largely unregulated, and we do not know if similar practices have taken place here. In 2017 Simon Harris, who was then Minister for Health, published the General Scheme of the Assisted Reproduction Bill. After four years, due to the complexity of the issues involved, but also to the resistance to regulation coming from fertility clinics, the Bill is still being drafted.

Joanna Rose wrote a submission on the Bill on behalf of the Iona Institute that can be read here.

Among other things, the General Scheme allows donation from family members who are not related by blood to the recipient. A woman, for instance, can use the sperm of her brother-in-law, and so the child’s uncle in reality would be its biological father. This type of things is already happening in Ireland.

Since last year, anonymous gamete donation is banned in Ireland but details of the donor, which are kept in a National Register, can be requested only after the child turns 18. Those identifying details are not mentioned in the birth certificate and so some donor-conceived people will never know.

Donors are generally from abroad and it will be difficult, after 18 years or more, to establish any significant relationship with them. Moreover, donors can refuse to provide information for safety reasons.

Some of the fertility clinics here want to return to the practice of anonymous egg and sperm donation.

This year, the Rapporteur on Child Protection recommended lowering the request age for donor information to 12 years, with no allowance to withhold information. That would be a small improvement on the present situation, but the question remains: how is it in the interest of children to be deliberately estranged from their genetic mother or father, and possible siblings? The scandals portrayed in the Guardian articles confirm that the natural ties are still important.

Mater semper certa. Perché l’essere umano non è una pera

Uso l’espressione “utero in affitto” invece di “surrogazione di maternità” perché rende esplicita la transazione commerciale. Mi oppongo alla retorica del “dono d’amore” e tutte le espressioni liriche, rispettose, sentimentali, inventate e diffuse dalle lobby delle industrie biotecnologiche, mentre si tratta di affittare, vendere, comprare, fare profitto. Una sorta di pinkwashing del linguaggio che mira a rendere accettabile e persino etico cancellare la madre e ridurre il suo corpo e il suo neonato a merci. Questa mistificazione nasconde una realtà brutale: essere affittate capita principalmente alle donne povere e/o di paesi poveri, e a loro arriva ben poco denaro perché il vero guadagno va alle agenzie.

La Conferenza dell’Aia ha stimato che il 50 per cento delle surroganti è analfabeta e accetta inconsapevolmente o su pressione degli uomini di famiglia che vogliono quei soldi. Ammassate con altre in grandi locali per risparmiare su dottori e strumenti diagnostici, nutrite e medicalizzate come mai in vita loro, quando infine il neonato viene portato via talvolta impazziscono, come raccontano le ong per i diritti umani, e spesso non vengono più riammesse nei villaggi. Non è possibile tenere una creatura dentro, metterla al mondo e poi vedersela portare via per sempre senza soffrire. Non si tratta di ragioni culturali - si è sostenuta persino questa - ma umane: la chimica ormonale che favorisce l’attaccamento tra madre e bambino, e poi la montata lattea, ovvero la sopravvivenza della specie. È proprio questo legame, fondante della vita stessa, a essere negato. Tutti i contratti di surrogacy dettagliano al millimetro quello che le mamme non possono fare, pena una multa: toccarsi la pancia, per esempio. Mangiare come d’abitudine. Avere rapporti sessuali. Tenere in braccio gli altri figli. Giocare con il gatto. Scegliere come partorire. 

Continua qui.

New law takes an axe to the natural ties

Un nuovo video.

New law takes an axe to the natural ties

This week, the final parts of the Children and Relationship Act 2015 have come into operation. This legislation has changed profoundly the legal arrangement of family relationships but in a way that downgrades the importance of the natural ties.

Part 2 and 3, which were delayed because of technical mistakes in the original Act, contain provisions relating to the regulation of so called “donor-assisted” human reproduction (DAHR).  

This is when the gamete (egg or sperm), or the embryo, is provided by someone who is, consequently, the natural parent of the child but will not be recognised as the legal parent of the child. The legal parent will be the ‘intending parent’. Intention will trump biology.

In Irish law, a woman who gives birth is the mother of a child. This new legislation will allow another person, a man or a woman, to be added as parent with the Registrar for Births, Death, and Marriages, when the child has been conceived through donation.

What it is called the “intending parent”, who has no genetic link to the child, can be the mother’s spouse, her civil partner or a cohabitant.

The Act has effect on female same-sex couples but not on male couples as they need a surrogate, and surrogacy will be regulated by different upcoming legislation.

The legislation bans anonymity, with some limited exceptions. The name of the “donor” will not appear on the birth certificate but in a National Donor-Conceived Person Register. Those details will be accessible to the conceived person only when they reach 18, if requested.

The new law has effect on past and future donor-conceived children, but in a different way.

From this week, only children conceived artificially in a clinical setting in Ireland from a known donor will come under this legislation, while it applies retrospectively also to children conceived in Ireland or abroad in the past, even if the donor is anonymous.

Let’s explore the significance of this act.

It has been presented by Minister Harris and by commentators as progressive, inclusive and child-centered.

It is the opposite.

In so called “donor” conception, children are conceived with the intention of being deliberately separated from their genetic parents, and possible siblings.  This legislation facilitates this. It is not inclusive as it intentionally excludes children from their genetic connections.

The legislation is also based on the assumption that natural ties do not matter, or else barely matter. But it is a common experience in people conceived artificially to search for their genetic origins. And it is curious that the only exception to the ban on anonymous donation contained in the new law is when a family wants to create a sibling for an existing child using the same donor, which is anonymous to the family but not to the clinic. In these cases, and only for a transitional period that ends in 2023, the details of the donor do not have to be registered.

This exception proves that genetic connection between siblings is so important that even this contradictory piece of legislation gives it some priority over other principles.

With regard to anonymity, it is good that some details of the “donor” are registered but how is it in the interest of children that they are denied access to those details until they become adults? This is definitively not child-centered. No child or teenager under 18 will have access to those details. And even when they turn 18, how likely is it that they will ever a close relationship with the donor (biological) parent?  (More here) 

How is it progressive and inclusive not to include those details from birth certificates?

Those concerns were raised in the past, not only by the Iona Institute (here and here, for instance) but also by child law experts and activists.

An important article from the Law Society Gazette questioned the accuracy of those certificates and the “profound implications of deliberate falsification of legal documents.”  

Dr Joanna Rose, whose court case brought about a ban on anonymous donations in the United Kingdom, told the Oireachtas: “Reproductive technology is a social experiment and the adverse impacts and consequences are unravelling over time around the world. Only donor offspring can inform on these things. We pay for our own counselling, genetic tests to find lost relatives and live with false birth certificates and absent or misleading medical histories. We have [lost] ethnicities and ancestors, unparalleled numbers of siblings and half siblings and all this confronts most of us privately in adulthood. There is little understanding of the resultant grief and its disenfranchisement by our families and community at large.”

If the 2015 Act comes into full operation only today is because it contained a number of technical errors, as it was rushed into law just before the same-sex marriage referendum. This was an attempt to exclude certain issues (same-sex adoption, parenting, etc.) from the referendum debate.

Legislation on donor IVF, rushed into law for Marriage Referendum, had ‘technical errors’. Nonetheless, at the time we maintained that the referendum wasn’t simply on the definition of marriage but also on the right of children to have a mother and a father. Today’s new changes prove, once again, that we were correct.

Minister Harris attacks a Catholic parish for being Catholic

Minister for Health Simon Harris has attacked a parish in Tullamore for a stating that IVF is incompatible with the Catholic faith. In doing so, he has stepped far outside his role as a Government Minister. He needs to mind his own business, which is precisely what some people have been telling the Church to do for years.

On Christmas Eve the following post appeared on the Tullamore Parish Facebook page: “Let’s continue to pray for life. We pray for couples struggling to naturally conceive and who are avoiding IVF treatment. The process of IVF damages embryonic stem cells and thus life and therefore is completely, clearly and totally incompatible with our Catholic faith. For all believers in God, all life is sacred at all times. …” The post has since been removed, following criticism on the page and on other media. The parish has also apologised.

Minister Harris, who recently announced a €2 million plan in support of the IVF industry, said: “The comments were, I am sure unintentionally, extremely hurtful to many families who are struggling with fertility issues”. He continued: “I thought and certainly hoped we had moved to a point as a country that this sort of inappropriate interference in decisions that individuals and couples make about their own lives would be left to them”.

How can such a post on Facebook be considered “inappropriate interference in decisions”?

It was a call for prayers and a reminder of what the Catholic Church teaches.

Artificial reproduction raises a large number of ethical issues. For instance, the number of embryos which are created but not used, or the selection and destruction of “defective” embryos.

It is not interference but, rather, part of the ordinary duty of a parish to stand beside those who struggle to conceive and, at the same time,to remind them about the moral principles that should guide every decision.

That Facebook post was not even a comment on legislation or on Minister Harris’s policies. It wasn’t an attempt to shape or to change the law, which would be perfectly legitimate in a democracy. It was simply written by someone in charge of the parish’s page to explain, very briefly, what the Church believes.

Minister Harris’s comments, instead, are an inappropriate interference in the right and duty of a parish to inform its parishioners about the teachings of the Catholic Church they belong.

It is not the role of a Minister to lecture faithfuls on their beliefs. After condemning a Facebook post, is he going to censor the parish bulletins all around the country?

Separation between Church and State means that the State’s representatives respect all moral and religious principles sincerely held by the citizens and do not interfere with their expression.

Moreover, when was the last time that Minister Harris attacked the views of a religion other than Catholicism? Catholics should expect from him, and from anyone who represents the State, the same sensitivity shown for other faiths.

But we know that the Catholic faith is a soft target and, particularly with the general election coming soon, it’s useful to take pot shots at it in order to divert the public from the real problems that a Minister for Health should deal with.

5 best articles

Questi sono i cinque articoli scritti per l'Iona Institute che in questo anno 2019 hanno ricevuto più visite:

1. Do Mary McAleese and We Are Church believe that John Paul II condoned rape?

2. Mary McAleese deeply flawed view of baptism and child autonomy.

3. Ireland joins the campaign to legalise abortion worldwide.

4. Laws banning protests outside abortion facilities are extremely rare.

5. UCD's big failure to honour its founder.


E questi invece sono cinque articoli che non hanno avuto il successo che meritavano.

1. The inaccurate accurate test for foetal abnormalities.

2. The grim reality of surrogacy in Ukraine.

3. Time for a bigger spotlight on rogue fertility clinics.

4. No strong evidence that free contraception will reduce abortion rate.

5. Teaching children that porn can be ethical and positive.

An important voice in favour of fathers speaks out

The French parliament is debating a new law which will extend assisted reproduction to single women and lesbian couples as well. What is interesting is the fact that no less a body than the National Academy of Medicine has objected to the proposed reform on the ground that will be permit the deliberate creation of children who will be raised without a father.

Currently French law only permit couples experiencing infertility to access IVF and other forms of assisted human reproduction – PMA (procréation médicalement assistée) in French. Under the proposed new law, where a single woman or lesbian couples avail of PMA, the name of the father will not appear on the birth certificate even if the donor is known, and, in the case of female couples, both women will be recorded as “mothers”. This is clearly a falsification and vital information will be hidden from the child.

Single men and male couples are not included in the new legislation but many fear that this restriction is only temporary. The slippery slope is inexorable, and critics also believe that in time the new proposal will inevitably open up to surrogacy – currently banned in France – as men obviously need a woman to carry a baby for them. The current Government is already well disposed to the recognition of children born from surrogacy in a foreign country, which will make the domestic ban ineffective.

This proposal represents a substantial change as it means that some women will access PMA without suffering from infertility. (Same-sex couples and single women are not infertile per se).

The National Academy of Medicine (Académie Nationale de Médecine) has stated that “The deliberate conception of a child deprived of a father constitutes a major anthropological break, which is not without risks for the psychological development and the flourishing of the child.”

The Academy “believes that, increasingly mistreated by changes in society, the figure of the father is still foundational for the child’s personality as recalled by child psychiatrists, pediatricians and psychologists.” It recognises that the Academy’s role is not to “give an opinion” on a “social measure”, but it “considers it its duty to raise a number of reservations related to possible medical consequences“.

The desire for a child will become a right to a child by almost any means. And this new “right” will prevail over the legitimate right of a child to have a mother and a father, when possible.

The new proposal has been heavily criticised by many sectors of the French society, including members of Macron’s party. A national protest day will be held on October 6.

A survey found that 82% of respondents believe that a child has a right to a mother and a father. 77% believe that a father and a mother have different and complementary role, and 66% oppose that replacement of “mother” and “father” with “parent 1” and “parent 2” in school forms, which has already happened.

Minister Simon Harris has proposed legislation regulating human assisted reproduction that is much more extreme and liberal than even the proposed French reform and, still, no debate is taking place in Ireland. There is no real opposition to what the Government presents.  Under Irish law, the need for a mother, never mind a father, is not considered.

In the Bill proposed by Harris the desire of the commissioning adults who want a child is paramount. Having a mother and a father does not matter anymore.

The moral contradictions of altruistic egg donation and surrogacy

The Oireachtas Joint Health Committee has just issued a report on Assisted Human Reproduction (AHR). The report is extremely inadequate in its treat of the ethically questionable aspects of AHR but for the sake of simplicity, let’s examine what seems to be the least problematic forms of AHR: so-called altruistic egg and sperm donation and altruistic surrogacy.
These are called ‘altruistic’ because they are provided by men and women who seek no profit; people who simply want to do good, and who are under no pressure to do so. The women in these cases must make a bigger sacrifice than the men because providing your womb for nine months, or donating your egg is much more onerous than sperm donation.

Let’s look at some examples of the practice. Take ‘Anne’, who donates eggs so that an infertile couple can have children. Let’s suppose that no monetary exchange is involved, not even in the form of compensation for expenses, which is still a subtle form of exchange. Anne, remember, expects nothing in return from the couple. This is altruism, not commerce. Some people would find her action morally acceptable, even laudable; and they would see no good reason why it should not be considered perfectly legal.
Another example is ‘Marie’. Like Anne, Marie is a healthy young woman and absolutely altruistic. Anne acts as a surrogate mother for a couple because the woman who wants to become a mother cannot carry a pregnancy. Again, let’s suppose that no monetary exchange is involved, not even in the form of compensation for expenses. Marie allows the use of her womb for mere altruism and expects nothing in return from the couple. Some people would find her action, too, to be morally acceptable; even laudable. This, too, they believe, should be perfectly legal.

Certainly, appropriate forms of regulation would be necessary in the cases of both, Anne and Marie, to anticipate and avoid possible conflicts that might arise between the parties involved but, in general, there are not many people who would find the actions of either Anne or Marie to be, in any way, dreadfully, seriously, problematic.
Now, let us imagine another healthy, young, and exceptionally altruistic woman, whom we shall call ‘Annemarie’. Annemarie, in this imaginary case, both donates her eggs to, and, acts as a surrogate mother for, a given couple. Whereas Marie gives only the eggs, and Anne her womb, Annemarie both.

Yes, here is the paradox: while some people would approve of the actions of Anne, and of Marie, the actions of Annemarie seem to them to be very different. Because very few people would consider the practice of conceiving and gestating a child with the deliberate intention of giving the child away to a commissioning couple, even for purely altruistic reasons, to be either morally or legally acceptable. So, with Anne and Marie: not problematic. Yet, with Annemarie: problematic.

What is so wrong in the case of Annemarie that is not seemingly wrong in the cases of Anne or Marie? If two actions are individually good, why are they not good when combined together?

The paradox obviously does not arise for those who do not consider gamete donation – that is the donation of either eggs or sperm – or surrogacy, (or both,) to be in any way acceptable. None of these practices should take place. For others, the paradox is there.
Ova are donated with a view to generating children; and if a surrogate mother is needed to complete the process why shouldn’t she be the very same woman who donates the eggs, meaning she is both the genetic and gestational mother of the child.
Similarly, if an altruistic surrogate mother is doing something good, isn’t she doing  something even better if she is also the altruistic donor? Would it be different if Annemarie donates her ova to one couple and acts as a surrogate for a different couple?
Those who would defend altruistic gamete donation and surrogacy should, if they are being logical, also defend the practice of the same woman being both the surrogate and the genetic mother. For that is the logic of it all. Somehow, we feel that there is more to this than cold logic; this does not feel right and proper.

And those who have no problems with some form of compensation (be it a fee, or expenses, or whatever) for gamete donation and surrogacy, should have no problem with turning the bringing of a child into this world into a commercial business.
We would like to know: when did treating children as commodities become acceptable and a sign of ‘progress’?

Mix-up reveals the terrible dilemma at the heart of IVF

A terrible example of an IVF mix-up emerged last week. Two babies were mistakenly implanted in the wrong woman causing huge upset to the parents involved. What the case illustrates is how important the natural ties are to most people, even though our culture is currently deeply conflicted about the matter with its contradictory messages that the natural ties matter a lot, and don’t matter at all because ‘love is all you need’.

In this case, a couple of Korean origin living in New York was originally told that two female embryos, out of eight that were artificially generated, had been transferred into the woman’s womb. But, to their surprise, the woman gave birth to two boys who were clearly not her own.

The boys did not share their parents’ Asian ethnicity and a DNA test revealed that they were not genetically related to their parents or even to each other. The couple was forced to give custody of each infant to their respective genetic parents, who were also clients of the same clinic.

The fate of the female embryos is unknown to the couple, who paid $100,000 for the disastrously flawed service.

Anni and Ashot Manukyan, from California, are one of the couples whose child was implanted in the wrong woman. They took a legal fight to reclaim their son and succeeded.

"Anni never had the opportunity to grow and bond with her son, to feel him kick in utero, and to watch him in ultrasounds. Anni and Ashot had no ability to ensure their son's health and well-being through prenatal care and nutrition and may never know what steps his gestational carrier took to protect and promote his fetal development”, they argued in their legal filing.

The Manukyans, who have spent 120,000 dollars on IVF and legal fees, are now suing the fertility centre for medical malpractice and negligence.

"Anni and Ashot are devastated that they never were able to experience the wonder of their son's childbirth; they never saw their baby's entrance into the world or cuddled him in his first seconds of life - moments that other parents treasure for the rest of their lives", they said.

In deciding to give her genetic child to her, the court deemed that the natural ties were the most significant element in establishing parentage. This is probably due to the legal contract that all the couples involved had signed with the clinic. In other jurisdictions family courts have ruled in the opposite direction.

For instance, in 2013 two Italian couples with the same surname had their embryos mixed-up. One embryo was later miscarried. The one that was successfully born was claimed by both couples but a judge ruled that, according to the Italian law, children belong to the mother who gives birth and so the child stayed with the non-genetic parents. The same principle would currently apply in Ireland.

All those mix-up cases make us wonder about the importance of the natural ties between a mother and her baby. Which matters more; the fact that the child is genetically related to you, or the fact that you have given birth to them? Once upon a time the question could not arise because the genetic mother and the birth mother were always the same person. IVF now allows us to split the mother into two people.

We should think and rule having the best interest of the child as paramount, but legislation tends to favour whatever adults want. In “donor conception”, for instance, where a third party egg and/or sperm is used, the natural ties are disregarded, and the genetic origin is considered not simply irrelevant but something to be hidden through anonymity, when it is permitted.

In surrogacy, instead, it is the bond between the child and the gestational mother that is considered irrelevant, as if nine months together don’t count and it doesn’t matter who gestates a baby.

When the different steps of a pregnancy (conception, implantation, gestation, birth) are artificially separated, it becomes extremely difficult to solve ethical and legal issues emerging from conflictual circumstances. This is why the industry of artificial reproduction should be heavily regulated and only the practices that are in the best interest of the child be permitted. The interests and wishes of the adults come a very distant second.