Gabriel Eckstein

Theology Seminar Presentation

The Ethical Dilemma concerning Frozen Embryos Post Dignitatis Personae

Originally, I planned to do a presentation on the ethical dilemma concerning frozen embryos post Donum Vitae1
(1987). Donum Vitae, from an ethicist’s standpoint, left certain questions open for theological and philosophical
speculation concerning possible moral solutions. However, with the release of Dignitatis Personae2 (2008) many
questions that had been left open from Donum Vitae have been settled. Specifically:

All things considered, it needs to be recognized that the thousands of abandoned embryos represent
a situation of injustice which in fact cannot be resolved. Therefore John Paul II made an “appeal to the
conscience of the world’s scientific authorities and in particular to doctors, that the production of human
embryos be halted, taking into account that there seems to be no morally licit solution regarding the
human destiny of the thousands and thousands of ‘frozen’ embryos which are and remain the subjects of
essential rights and should therefore be protected by law as human persons”. (Dignitatis Personae 19)

In the debate over what should be done to fix this dilemma there are roughly five main solutions: (1) Medical
experimentation for the good of the whole, (2) Thaw out the embryos to return them to their natural state and
then baptize them, (3) Leave them frozen until a better solution arises (such as an artificial womb), (4) Leave
them frozen because nothing licit can be done to save these embryos and let them naturally die (AKA an
impossible situation), (5) allow couples to prenatally adopt the embryos by implanting them into the woman’s
womb (this includes infertile couples willing to adopt).

Before the release of Diginitatis Personae I would have whole heartedly endorsed pre-natal adoption. Donum
Vitae, according to some ethicists, left the door open for the possibility of pre-natal adoption. Because there had
been no clear stance given by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on the possible solution of pre-
natal adoption and because ethicists were split on this issue, Christians in good faith could prenatally adopt the
frozen embryos. This has changed since Dignitatis Personae (in a sense). However, there is a lot of ambiguity
here. I will explain this ambiguity, but I will not be able to offer a definitive solution because, frankly, there is
not an easy one available. Therefore, in this presentation I will present a basic foundation for understanding this
ethical dilemma and in the process I will give reasons why each of the main solutions proposed by both
Catholic and atheists are illicit, except (possibly) for pre-natal adoption (the subject causing the most
confusion).

1 Instruction on Respect for Human Life in Its Origin and on the Dignity of Procreation, issued February 22, 1987.
2 Instruction on the Dignity of a Person, issued December 12, 2008.
1) The Background of this Dilemma
a) Infertile Couples undergo the procedure of in vitro fertilization to become pregnant
b) “In order to carry out in vitro fertilization (IVF), doctors obtain ova from the mother and sperm cells
from the father and cause their fusion in a petri dish outside the bodies of the spouses. One of the
resulting embryos is transferred to the mother’s uterus. If all goes well, the embryo will mature normally
within the mother’s womb. Typically, technicians cause the fertilization of several ova, choose the
embryo they think has the best chance of survival, and freeze the rest (by cryopreservation). After
successful implantation of an embryo occurs, the remaining embryos are discarded.”3
(1) “Cryopreservation is a process of freezing biological tissues for storage, while minimizing
cellular damage from freezing and thawing. This technique entails freezing the embryo while
simultaneously removing the intracellular water and replacing it with a cryoprotectant solution
which help to protect the embryo during the freezing process.”4
c) Statistics5:
(1) 2.1 million Married couples are infertile.
(2) 10-15% of infertile couples become candidates for various forms of Assisted Reproductive
Technologies (ARTs) to assist them in having their own biological children. (210,000 – 315,000
couples)
(3) IVF accounts for 99% of Assisted Reproductive Technologies
(4) It has been estimated that there are 500,000 spare embryos frozen with an additional 20,000
embryos added yearly. The issue is now what to do with the 500,000 frozen embryos that remain
as “spares.”6
(5) Over 3 million babies have been born worldwide due to IVF
(6) Approximately, 65-70% of embryos survive thaw, 10% partially survive and 20-25% are atretic.7
(7) 10-25% of the embryos transferred into the uterus women actually implant.
(8) The overall birth rate varies from 11% (women over 40) to about 35% (women under 35).
(9) The average cost of IVF is $12,000-17,000 per cycle. It is estimated that 75% of couples who
have tried IVF and who spent from $10,000-100,000 still go home without a baby.

ii) What these statistics show is that there have been a considerable amount of embryos die from
thawing, being discarded, failing to implant, or from miscarriages after implantation. Even with a
conservative estimate, we can see that the numbers concerning how many embryos have been lost
are staggering.

2) The dilemma, restated, is what should we do with these countless cryogenically frozen embryos?
a) As mentioned above, Dignitatis Personae states: “All things considered, it needs to be recognized that
the thousands of abandoned embryos represent a situation of injustice which in fact cannot be resolved.”

3 http://www.cuf.org/faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=263
4 Clark, Peter A. "Embryo Donation/Adoption: Medical, Legal and Ethical Perspectives." Internet Journal of Law, Healthcare &
Ethics 5, no. 2 (January 2009): 2. Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost (accessed February 27, 2011).
5 Ibid.
6 This number (500,000) is how many embryos are frozen in the United States. Worldwide numbers would be impossible to come by.
7 Embryo survival is based on the number of viable cells in an embryo after thawing. An embryo has 'survived' if >50% of the cells
are viable. An embryo is considered to 'partially survive' if <50% of its cells are viable and to be 'atretic' if all the cells are dead at
thaw.
 Gabriel Eckstein
Theology Seminar Presentation
i) One of the ambiguities on this topic surrounds what this quote actually entails. Thus, we need to
understand this quote in context, specifically in regards to what possible solutions have been rejected
and to see if any solutions are left open.
3) Dignitatis Personae
a) Dignitatis Personae was written to bring Donum Vitae up to date.
i) “The teaching of Donum Vitae remains completely valid, both with regard to the principles on which
it is based and the moral evaluations which it expresses. However, new biomedical technologies
which have been introduced in the critical area of human life and the family have given rise to
further questions, in particular in the field of research on human embryos, the use of stem cells for
therapeutic purposes, as well as in other areas of experimental medicine. These new questions
require answers… These developments have led the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to
prepare a new doctrinal Instruction which addresses some recent questions in the light of the criteria
expressed in the Instruction Donum Vitae and which also examines some issues that were treated
earlier, but are in need of additional clarification.” (DP 1)
4) Teachings of DP
a) The Personhood of the frozen embryo must be recognized
i) “The dignity of a person must be recognized in every human being from conception to natural death.
This fundamental principle expresses a great “yes” to human life and must be at the center of ethical
reflection on biomedical research, which has an ever greater importance in today’s world.” (DP 1)
ii) “The body of a human being, from the very first stages of its existence, can never be reduced merely
to a group of cells. The embryonic human body develops progressively according to a well-defined
program with its proper finality, as is apparent in the birth of every baby.” (DP 4)
iii) “Indeed, the reality of the human being for the entire span of life, both before and after birth, does
not allow us to posit either a change in nature or a gradation in moral value, since it possesses full
anthropological and ethical status. The human embryo has, therefore, from the very beginning, the
dignity proper to a person.” (DP 5)
(1) The personhood of the embryo is essential to the debate concerning this ethical dilemma. When
the human dignity of the frozen embryo is not recognized, utilitarianism (or consequentionalism)
is the natural result. Thus, embryos will be experimented on and destroyed for the greater good
of mankind because the end is what matters, not the means in getting there. (Possible use of
Scott Klusendorf and Nadine Strossen Debate example)
(a) “Respect for the dignity of the human being excludes all experimental manipulation or
exploitation of the human embryo.” (DV I.4.b)
(b) “If the embryos are living, whether viable or not, they must be respected just like any
other human person; experimentation on embryos which is not directly therapeutic is illicit.”
(DV I.4.a)
(c) “The corpses of human embryos and foetuses, whether they have been deliberately aborted
or not, must be respected just as the remains of other human beings.” (DV I.4.c)
b) The practice of IVF is illicit
i) “The Church moreover holds that it is ethically unacceptable to dissociate procreation from the
integrally personal context of the conjugal act”. (DP 16)
(1) “Only respect for the link between the meanings of the conjugal act and respect for the unity of
the human being make possible procreation in conformity with the dignity of the person… The
 one conceived must be the fruit of his parents' love…The moral relevance of the link between the
meanings of the conjugal act and between the goods of marriage, as well as the unity of the
human being and the dignity of his origin, demand that the procreation of a human person be
brought about as the fruit of the conjugal act specific to the love between spouses. (DV II, B, 4,
c)
(a) Outside of the conjugal act, fertilization cannot morally take place.
ii) Also, as mentioned above, the staggering numbers in how many embryos die lead to the
condemnation of IVF.
(1) “It is true that approximately a third of women who have recourse to artificial procreation
succeed in having a baby. It should be recognized, however, that given the proportion between
the total number of embryos produced and those eventually born, the number of embryos
sacrificed is extremely high. These losses are accepted by the practitioners of in vitro fertilization
as the price to be paid for positive results. In reality, it is deeply disturbing that research in this
area aims principally at obtaining better results in terms of the percentage of babies born to
women who begin the process, but does not manifest a concrete interest in the right to life of
each individual embryo.” (DP 14b)
c) Cryopreservation
i) “Cryopreservation is incompatible with the respect owed to human embryos; it presupposes their
production in vitro; it exposes them to the serious risk of death or physical harm, since a high
percentage does not survive the process of freezing and thawing; it deprives them at least
temporarily of maternal reception and gestation; it places them in a situation in which they are
susceptible to further offense and manipulation.” (cf. DV I, 6; DP 18b)
(1) “The majority of embryos that are not used remain ‘orphans’. Their parents do not ask for them
and at times all trace of the parents is lost. This is why there are thousands upon thousands of
frozen embryos in almost all countries where in vitro fertilization takes place. (DP 19c)
ii) “With regard to the large number of frozen embryos already in existence the question becomes: what
to do with them?” (DP 19)
d) DP, following this question, responds to two of the proposals mentioned above
i) Medical experimentation for the good of the whole
(1) Proposals to use these embryos for research or for the treatment of disease are obviously
unacceptable because they treat the embryos as mere “biological material” and result in their
destruction. The proposal to thaw such embryos without reactivating them and use them for
research, as if they were normal cadavers, is also unacceptable. (DV 19b)
ii) Pre-natal Adaption
(1) The adoption by infertile couples
(a) The proposal that these embryos could be put at the disposal of infertile couples as
a treatment for infertility is not ethically acceptable for the same reasons which make
artificial heterologous procreation8 illicit as well as any form of surrogate motherhood. (DV
19c)
(i) However, this does not even mention heterlogous embryo transfer (HET), which is
basically what the adoption would be. It condemns heterologous fertilization and
procreation, which I would agree with, but concerning HET adoption, everything is

8 By the term heterologous artificial fertilization or procreation, the Instruction means techniques used to obtain a human conception
artificially by the use of gametes coming from at least one donor other than the spouses who are joined in marriage. (DV II)
 Gabriel Eckstein
Theology Seminar Presentation
ambiguous. DP seems to condemn HET, but it really does not outright condemn it. This
will be explained more, shortly.
(2) Adoption by normal couples (not much different from infertile ones)
(a) “It has also been proposed, solely in order to allow human beings to be born who are
otherwise condemned to destruction, that there could be a form of ‘prenatal adoption’. This
proposal, praiseworthy with regard to the intention of respecting and defending human life,
presents however various problems not dissimilar to those mentioned above.” (DV 19b)
(i) Yet, the problem with this is the CDF does not come out and straight up condemn
prenatal adoption. I am not sure if there is a door left, but some theologians think so and
within reason.
(ii) There mere fact that there is some theological ambiguity and room for more theological
discussion means the CDF has not been (or possibly can not be) definitive enough.
1. Stephen Napier, Ph.D. thinks Dignitas Personae “allow(s) for the adoption of frozen
embryos remaining from in vitro fertilization procedures” and offers pretty
convincing evidence.9
a. First, he offers evidence from the USCCB follow up article (Questions and
Answers: The Instruction “Dignitas Personae: On Certain Bioethical
Questions”).10
i. “Proposals for ‘adoption’ of abandoned or unwanted frozen embryos are also
found to pose problems, because the Church opposes use of the gametes or
bodies of others who are outside the marital covenant for reproduction. The
document raises cautions or problems about these new issues but does not
formally make a definitive judgment against them.”
b. Second, “the current president of the Pontifical Academy for Life, Archbishop
Rino Fisichella, has said that the issue of embryo adoption was still an open
question. If the USCCB and the President of the Pontifical Academy for Life got
the interpretation wrong, the Vatican would have corrected them publicly. But
there has not been any correction; consequently, the question on embryo adoption
remains open.”
5) DP weighed directly into two of the five possible solutions
a) However, what needs to be understood is what is meant by the phrase a “situation of injustice which in
fact cannot be resolved”.
i) If viewed in an absolute sense then three out of the four solutions (excluding embryo
experimentation) are not morally permissible
(1) The only morally permissible solution is to do nothing and let the embryos eventually die from
decay.
ii) However, if prenatal adoption is left open ended, then, the statement cannot be understood in the
absolute sense. If this is the case then we would have to leave it up to reason to decide what is
morally permissible.
(1) Concerning the option to thaw and baptize, one could use the argument that you cannot will the
death of an innocent person. By thawing, you are directly leading to the death of the embryo.
(a) The debate can be summarized as follows:
(i) “Some moral theologians and ethicists have speculated whether baptizing the embryos
and allowing them to thaw (and therefore die) is an acceptable solution. Fr. Pacholczyk,

9 http://www.ncbcenter.org/NetCommunity/Page.aspx?pid=1010
10 http://www.usccb.org/comm/Dignitaspersonae/Q_and_A.pdf
 for example, suggests that this is not a true solution, as the act of thawing ‘is the direct
and primary cause of death’ (‘Frozen Embryo Adoptions Are Morally Objectionable’).
Tonti-Filipini, on the other hand, suggests that it is acceptable to allow the embryos to be
thawed and "restored to their natural dynamic state, a state more fitting their sacredness
as human beings than the state of frozen and anhydrous suspended animation," knowing
that the embryos would then die (‘The Embryo Rescue Debate: Impregnating Women,
Ectogenesis, and Restoration from Suspended Animation’).”11
(2) The last option to be discussed is to leave the embryos frozen until we can morally come up with
a solution
(a) The main argument is that eventually we can use artificial incubators to bring the embryos to
term.
(i) An artificial incubator would allow for the embryos to be born outside of the goods of
marriage, however, the child born would not be born to parents.
(ii) Incubators are used for pre-mature babies as early as 24 weeks. What is the difference
between one week and 24 weeks?

For a great overview of the debate over the possible solutions please see:

Berg, Thomas V., and Edward J. Furton, eds. Human Embryo Adoption:
Biotechnology, Marriage, and the Right to Life. Philadelphia: National
Catholic Bioethics Center, 2006.

For a complete bibliography, please e-mail me at

Geckstein001@student.franciscan.edu

11 http://www.cuf.org/faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=263