In Vitro Fertilization

  1. In vitro fertilization, IVF, may be morally justified when such a pregnancy takes place in the context of the marital bond.
  2. When IVF is advocated outside the context of marital commitment, such a procedure lacks moral justification.
  3. Christian medical scientists differ on the moral worthiness of research with the human ovum and human sperm as a necessary part of perfecting techniques for in vitro fertilization.
  4. Our consideration of in vitro fertilization is qualified by the following recommendations:
  • Laboratory IVF research should not be supported or allowed unless such research is with the explicit intent of embryo transfer and eventual normal pregnancies.
  • Clinical IVF and embryo transfer is justified morally only within the context of the marital bond, using "gametes obtained from lawfully married couples" as the recommendations of the Ethics Advisory Board of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare indicate.
  • Finally, amniocentesis with possible abortion should not be an expected part of the clinical protocol.

This statement was adopted by the Christian Medical & Dental Society House of Delegates to provide a means of stimulating ethical debate and reflecting a sense of moral suasion.

Approved by the CMDS House of Delegates May 13, 1983. Boston, Massachusetts

Reproductive Technology

Preamble

The family is the basic social unit as designed by God. It is formed as a man and woman make an exclusive marital commitment for love, companionship, intimacy, and spiritual union. As a result of their physical union, children may be added to the family.

Children are a gift and responsibility from God to the family. Parents are entrusted with providing and modeling love, nurture, protection and spiritual training. The inability to have children need not diminish the fullness of the family.

Infertile couples may choose adoption or seek medical care when they desire children. Adoption emulates God's adoption of us as spiritual children. Some reproductive technologies are an appropriate exercise of mankind's God-given creativity.

Certain reproductive technologies may present direct and indirect dangers to the family. As technology permits further divergence from normal physiologic reproduction, it increasingly leads to perplexing moral dilemmas. Not every technological procedure may be morally justified.

The principles which can guide the development and implementation of reproductive technologies include the following:

  • First, conception resulting from the union of a wife's egg and her husband's sperm i the biblical design.
  • Second, individual human life begins at conception; therefore, God intends for us to protect it.
  • Third, God holds us morally responsible for our genetic offspring.

Statement

CMDS approves the following procedures as consistent with God's design for the family:

  • Education about fertilization
  • Medical treatment (e.g., ovulation-inducing drugs)
  • Surgical intervention (e.g., for anatomic abnormalities hindering fertility)
  • Artificial insemination by husband (AIH)
  • Adoption
  • In-Vitro fertilization (IVF) with husband's sperm and wife's egg, with subsequent:
    • a. Transfer to uterus (Embryo replacement)
    • b. Zygote intrafallopian transfer (ZIFT)
  • Gamete intrafallopian transfer (GIFT)--Husband's sperm and wife's egg
  • Cryopreservation of sperm or egg

CMDS cannot speak with certainty about the place of the following procedures in God's design for the family:

    • Artificial insemination by donor (AID)
    • In-Vitro fertilization (donor egg or donor sperm)
    • Gamete Intrafallopian Transfer (donor egg or donor sperm)
    • Zygote Intrafallopian Transfer (donor egg or donor sperm)
      • Reason: While there is no clear biblical support for the concept of the introduction of a third party, there is strong biblical support for the ideal of a family as defined in the preamble of this statement.
    • Cryopreservation of embryos with specific safeguards*
      • Reason: Cryopreservation raises the possibility of embryo destruction and preservation of excessive embryos.

  • CMDS opposes the following procedures as inconsistent with God's design for the family:
    • Selective abortion for embryo reduction or sex selection
    • Surrogate mother procedures
    • Transfer of excessive numbers of embryos to a recipient mother
    • Uterine lavage for embryo transfer
    • Discarding of embryos
    • Non-therapeutic experimentation with embryos

    CONCLUSION

    CMDS affirms the need for continued moral scrutiny of our developing reproductive technology as it impacts the family. We recognize that as physicians we must use our creative capacity within the limits of God's design. Couples who suffer from infertility should be encouraged to seek pastoral guidance and counsel, as well as to pray for God's wisdom in the use of these technologies.

    ADDENDUM

    In this statement embryo refers to the conceptus from the moment of fertilization. We do not differentiate between the new term "pre-embryo" and embryo.

    *GUIDELINES FOR CRYOPRESERVATION OF EMBRYOS:

    1. Cryopreservation of embryos should be done with the sole intent of future transfer to the genetic mother.
    2. Embryos should be produced from the husband's sperm and the wife's eggs.
    3. A limited number of embryos should be produced to eliminate cryopreservation of excessive numbers of embryos.
    4. There should be preagreement on the part of the couple that if the wife becomes pregnant, all remaining frozen embryos will be transferred back into her at future times of her choice.
    5. There should also be preagreement that in a situation in which the embryos cannot be transferred to the wife (e.g., where the wife dies or has a hysterectomy) they will be adopted by another couple who desire to have a child for themselves by having the embryos transferred to the adoptive mother.

    Approved by the CMDS House of Delegates May 3, 1990. Toronto, Canada Passed with a vote 4 of 63 in favor, 1 opposed

Abortion

  1. We oppose the practice of abortion and urge the active development and employment of alternatives.
  2. The practice of abortion is contrary to: The revealed, written Word of God. Respect for the sanctity of human life. Traditional, historical, and Judeo-Christian medical ethics.
  3. We believe that biblical Christianity affirms certain basic principles which dictate against interruption of human gestation; namely: The ultimate sovereignty of a loving God, the Creator of all life. The great value of human life transcending that of the quality of life. The moral responsibility of human sexuality.
  4. While recognize the right of physicians and patients to follow the dictates of individual conscience before God, we affirm the final authority of Scripture which teaches the sanctity of human life.

Approved by the CMDS House of Delegates May 4, 1985. San Diego, California
Passed with a vote of 59 in favor, 3 opposed, 1 abstention

Anti-Progestational Agents: RU-486

RU-486 and other anti-progestational agents were developed as abortifacients. Additionally, they may have other potential applications which remain to be demonstrated.

While abortion is currently legal, it remains an issue of intense moral and ethical debate. We believe it violates the biblical principle of the sanctity of human life. RU-486, when used as an abortifacient, is thus morally unacceptable. The result of both surgical abortion and RU-486 is the destruction of a defenseless life. The apparent ease and simplicity of pharmacological abortion further trivializes the value of life.

Some suggest that potential applications of RU-486 exist which justify further clinical investigation. Because its investigation for other uses will further threaten the unborn, we oppose such introduction of RU-486, and all similar abortifacients into the U.S. We do not oppose its development for non-abortifacient uses in jurisdictions where the rights of the unborn are protected.

If additional data suggest that there is a significant therapeutic benefit for these agents in life-threatening disease, we would support their compassionate use as restricted investigational agents. If they are demonstrated to have a unique therapeutic benefit for treatment of life-threatening disease, we would reconsider our position on their introduction into the U.S. We would, however, insist that there be strict control of distribution.

We believe that the introduction of RU-486 into the U.S. at this time is not justified because our society has not yet exercised its moral capacity to protect the unborn.

Passed unanimously by the CMDS House of Delegates May 3, 1991. Chicago, Illinois

Use of Fetal Tissue for Experimentation and Transplantation

We affirm that human life warrants protection from the time of conception because it bears the image of God. Medical interventions that involve the unborn child should be permitted only with the intent of providing diagnostic information or fetal therapy, and only when the potential benefits clearly outweigh the potential risks to both child and mother.

The use of fetal tissue for experimentation and transplantation introduces the opportunity for the gross abuse of human life, such as conception and abortion for the sole purpose of obtaining fetal tissue. Also, the use of fetal tissue from elective abortions could be interpreted as further justification for abortion.

CMDS does not oppose the use of these tissues of spontaneously aborted, non-viable fetuses, with parental consent, for research or transplantation.

Approved by the CMDS House of Delegates May 5, 1989. Minneapolis, Minnesota
Passed with 1 opposing vote

"Baby Doe"

This resolution was adopted following the decision of the Indiana Supreme Court in the case of a Down's Syndrome neonate in Bloomington, Indiana.

RESOLVED that the Christian Medical Society strongly opposes the decision allowing for the death of "Baby Doe" and urges that this Court decision not be seen as either legal or moral precedent for the future. The right of privacy does not allow for parents to decide the death of such infants.

Approved by the CMDS House of Delegates May 7, 1982. Dallas, Texas Passed with a vote of 41 in favor, 12 opposed