THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1996, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Sunday, March 24, 1996 TAG: 9603220169
SECTION: DAILY BREAK PAGE: E5 EDITION: FINAL
SOURCE: BY ANN G. SJOERDSMA
LENGTH: Medium: 85 lines
AS A WOMAN, I've always been on the ``wrong'' side of ``assisted reproduction'' - of such medical advances as in vitro fertilization (IVF), gamete intrafallopian tube transfer (GIFT), artificial insemination and so forth.
I have trouble relating to the obsession that many infertile women have to produce a genetic child, whatever the cost in years, dollars and mental anguish. IVF and GIFT, recommended only after months of failed natural conception, are generally uninsured (as well as painstaking) procedures.
And what of the many motherless children already born?
I am also troubled by the unnatural means of creating, indeed altering, life. What will be their long-term consequences?
Are IVF- or GIFT-conceived children any different from naturally conceived children? How do all of these births (many multiple and to older mothers) that would never have occurred a mere generation ago change the fabric of society, community, family?
If ``natural selection'' within our species is obsolete, what process has replaced it?
Since the 1978 birth of the first ``test-tube baby,'' the largely unregulated infertility-treatment field has developed into a $2 billion-a-year industry. It has benefited from free-enterprise principles. But is it socially responsible?
Many bioethicists have wondered. Religious bodies have weighed in. But public debate has been scant. That will change. Why? Scandal.
Last May, three doctors at the University of California-Irvine's prestigious Center for Reproductive Health - Ricardo Asch, Sergio Stone and Jose Balmaceda - were accused of stealing eggs and embryos from as many as 100 patients for research or implantation in other women.
Why did they steal or ``swap'' eggs? To bolster their pregnancy success rate. To gain a competitive advantage. Some eggs ``take''; others don't. They simply replaced the ``bad'' with the ``good.''
A reported 300 families - donors and recipients - have been affected. Some 40 former patients have sued Asch and the university for money damages.
Pioneers of GIFT, a surgical procedure that enables fertilization within the fallopian tube, Drs. Asch and Balmaceda have fled the country. They now practice in Latin America.
Dr. David Archer, head of the Clinical Research Unit at Norfolk's groundbreaking Jones Institute for Reproductive Medicine, assures me that Asch and company are greedy aberrations in a reputable medical specialty. I don't doubt that.
Nonetheless, they have opened doors - to courts of law and public opinion. For the first time, assisted reproduction other than surrogate parenting is being viewed as more than an individual's personal choice. A fallout has begun.
Recently former UC patients Loretta and Basilio Jorge stirred up a hornet's nest when they sued for custody of 6-year-old twins who they claim are the product of either Loretta's stolen eggs or the couple's stolen embryos. After being assailed by angry phone calls, the 36-year-old couple retreated from a demand for sole or joint custody in their unprecedented lawsuit to a request for weekend visitation.
What sort of people would disrupt the lives of young children, happy and secure in one home with one set of parents, to further their own biological stakes?
Desperate people. Single-minded people. Injured people.
The Jorges tried for 16 years to conceive, enduring two miscarriages and two expensive ($30,000) in-vitro fertilizations at Asch's clinic. The UC doctors appear to have abused their trust. They have suffered. But they have no moral right to a remedy that injures other innocent, equally desperate people. Especially children.
Where does love fit in this procreative mixture?
Not long ago a psychologist who screens ova donors for a fertility clinic characterized my concern about all that genetic matter being implanted in unknown wombs and growing into unknown independent life as ``a male point of view.''
Most of the women he interviews speak of their eggs as gifts of ``joy,'' not DNA, and detach emotionally with pregnancy.
All I could think was had I donated some eggs about 10 years ago when I was egg-prime and pursuing other life goals, there might be 20 pre-wired half-Anns walking the Earth today. I might have my own battalion of immortality.
Talk about disconcerting. Yes, I would like to talk about what's disconcerting. It appears that with the California litigation, we will be, for some time to come. MEMO: Ann G. Sjoerdsma is a lawyer and book editor for The Virginian-Pilot. by CNB