Eudoxa

Human embryonic stem cells became a source of contention between this year's candidates for the presidency. President George W. Bush tried to reach a compromise between the people that consider this to be unethical, and still open up for federal grants for this kind of research. Most of us should be familiar with those arguments at this point.

A less publicized dilemma that is related to stem cells is America's surplus of frozen embryos. Some of the moderate republicans in the House of Representatives are agonizing over whether these embryos can be used for stem cell research. They are not going anywhere, or they will be destroyed. Stem cell research makes it possible to give these embryos a more meaningful purpose.

These embryos where not produced for research purposes, they where produced for procreation purposes. They are embryos left over after a couple has gone through in vitro fertilization.

Right now they are just sitting there, waiting for someone to use them. Few people know the straight answer on what we should do with them. The issue difficult because they will most likely be destroyed at some point. The opponents of embryonic stem cell research are opposing it because they want to protect embryos from destruction. But in this situation the embryos will be destroyed anyway.

This raises the issue of overproduction of embryos as well, because overproduction created the storage of embryos we have today. Some European countries are considering or have imposed regulation to limit overproduction. Scientists cannot produce more embryos than they are planning to use, or to put it another way; they have to use all the embryos they produce.

Hyperovulating drugs are harsh on a woman's body, they put her body in hormonal overdrive so she produces maybe a dozen eggs instead of just one during her monthly ovulation. The stress on her body is huge as many egg donators can attest to. For medical reasons donators can only do this a regulated number of times with an extended period between each round.

Prohibiting overproduction will force the woman seeking in vitro fertilization to use the hyper ovulation drugs more often, because they cannot use one batch for several implants.

Forcing couples to go through the extraction process for each implant will likely also increase the cost of in vitro fertilization, making it even less accessible to couples without costly health insurance plans or hefty bank accounts.

The European limitation eliminates a couple's ability to screen the embryos for genetic diseases because they have to use each batch fully. Pre-screening is even illegal in many European countries, but for Americans this will lead to a severe limitation in a technology they already use. Many opponents of pre-screening technology will think elminating pre-screening is a good thing, but the real issue is if we are infringing upon the couples right to give their child the best start they possibly can.

So what should we do with the little jars of human embryos? Many more issues are involved than just the ethics of using them or not. Property rights are involved as well, because who owns them at this point? The couple that provided the biomass to produce them, or the companies that have been storing them all this time?

At the end of the day these decisions should be left in the hands of the individuals. The government should not be involved in deciding what to do with the embryos, or regulating if the cures they produce can be used. Those decisions are too important to leave to anyone but the individual donating biomass or considering the best treatment options for himself.