7 QT: Recommended Reading on Embryo Adoption

                                       

7QT, linking up with Conversion Diary.

It's been a while since I've argued on behalf of embryo adoption.  Sure, I talk about it and share first-hand stories of living through it, but I haven't recently written any Catholic moral arguments on its behalf.  Maybe I'll do that soon.

In the meanwhile, here's a list of seven starting points if you want to know some of what the Church has to say about embryo adoption.  Be forewarned.  This is not a simple black or white issue.  In the particular issue of EA, there are not just two opposing schools of thought (one for and one against), but dozens of slightly differing schools of thought. 

1.  Dignitas Personae (DP). Published in December 2008, this is the only Vatican issue document that mentions embryo adoption (see sections 18 and 19 specifically).  While the wording is strongly negative, it does not label EA as illicit.  The Church knows how to be clear; there is no room to question her ruling on IVF, for example.  However, she has specifically chosen this somewhat ambiguous wording on EA for the time being.

Side note:  shortly after the Vatican released Dignitas Personae, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) issued a short Q/A and summary in response.  While many theologians were questioning the openness of the EA debate following the release of DP, the USCCB's Q/A clearly indicated that the debate was still open.  (See page 3, question 5).

2.  While the National Catholic Bioethics Center (NCBC) was predominantly against embryo adoption, they did recognize that DP left room for personal interpretation, or "further theological reflection" as they put it.

3.  In November 2009, the USCCB released "Life-Giving Love in an Age of Technology".  This is the ONLY time that the Church has mentioned embryo donation and embryo adoption as two separate courses of action.  I wish the document actually defined the two and clarified their differences.  I have my own ideas and perhaps one day will finish my draft and publish it, but I digress...  Page 12 specifically mentions embryo adoption as morally concerning, while egg/sperm/embryo donation is clearly condemned on page 5.

4.  If you want to get a feel for some of the differing schools of thought on EA, try to locate a copy of The Ethics of Embryo Adoption and the Catholic Tradition.  I first read this when a med school friend checked out a copy for me from his school library in 2008 or 2009.  And then I was blessed to receive a complimentary copy from the editor.  Though the compilation predates the release of Dignitas Personae, many of the arguments remain the same. 

5.  Ronald Conte is a Catholic moral theologian.  He wrote a lengthy essay arguing on behalf of the theory of embryo adoption.  I do take issue with his specific proposal for thawing/transferring (only a single embryo at a time), but that should be saved for another blog post. 

6.  I first "met" Dr. Gerry Nadal through his blog, actually his first installment on his embryo adoption series.  We even talked on the phone around the same time he wrote his three part series.  I'm pretty sure I was the first person with whom he'd interracted who had real-life experience rather than just theoretical experience with EA.  Click here for Part One, here for Part Two, and here for Part Three of his series on embryo adoption. 

7.  There is a blog called "Catholic Moral Theology" that is written by a "group of North American Catholic moral theologians".  In January 2013, they published a piece that examined embryo adoption from a different standpoint.  "Setting the Captives Free”: Is There Precedent for Embryo Adoption in Scripture and Medieval Christian Tradition?

This is not by any means an exhaustive list.  Since I personally am arguing on behalf of embryo adoption, many of the links above argue the same.  Just keep in mind that support for EA is in the minority among groups of "professional moral theologians".  If you do a little internet digging, you will undoubtedly find a long list of articles against EA, if you so desire.

Getting closer

We have shipping dates!

On Tuesday, May 27, the tanks will be sent from my clinic to genetic parents' clinics.  Each set of two embryos will be loaded up and returned for delivery to my clinic Wednesday, May 28.  That's next week!!!!

We're just in a holding pattern right now, waiting for cycle day one (still about ten days out from that).  All of my meds are ordered, some are already here.  Because we're following my natural cycle, I'm not on any medication currently (other than allergy meds, but that's just due to pollen count, not cycling...)

Just need to get one more form notarized and then I can hand it over at my first appointment.

We are getting closer and closer!



PS.  Could you please say a quick prayer that transport will be smooth and uneventful and the embryos will remain safe?  Thank you.

Finally, an adoption update

At long last, contracts are in!  It took us a few days to get our personal contracts notarized and mailed off.  In the meanwhile, it took the genetic parents a few weeks to get their portions done.  I'm glad we weren't crunched for time because the process this time around has taken FOREVER.

I had my hysteroscopy completed a few weeks ago. Unpleasant, but all clear.  However, it did bump my timeline back a bit for the embryo transfer.

All we have now is clinic paperwork (have to re-enroll in their system each transfer) and then we'll hit the ground running.

Our four adopted snow babies should be shipped this way within the next few weeks.

I'll start meds end of May or beginning of June.  Really, really, really hoping to avoid birth control and do a "natural" cycle this time.   BC for me equals crazy psycho woman.   Given past experiences, I'd basically need to live in the Confessional by week two on birth control.

Right now, my estimates put the transfer the last week of June.  Yay!!  And yet still so far away...

7 Quick Takes

 

 

 

1.  The kids, especially Mac, are at that funny stage in which they are infatuated by superheroes.  They've never even seen a single tv episode or superhero movie (apart from The Incredibles) and yet they still are learning the character names and role playing.  Sometimes, the details get a little mixed up.  At lunch today, for example, I was informed that there are four Batman bad guys:  Mr. Freezer Man, Penguin Man (aka Pink Man), The Liar, and The Joker.  Amazing how a $1 coloring book impulse buy shapes my kids' imaginations!

 

2.  Well, that was unusual.  I just got called away to rescue Cora from the mini-blinds.  She had somehow gotten the button on the back of her dress entangled in the mini-blinds.  She offered no explanation as to how that occured...

 

3.  I learned something truly delightful and edifying from the kids this week.  You can make colored boogers.  Step one:  color extensively with markers, so much so that your hands become vibrantly colored.  Step two: pick one's nose with said vibrantly colored fingers.  Step three: marvel at the results.    It should be noted that we were using "jewel tone" markers that day so the effects were extraordinary.

 

Sorry if number three grossed you out.  I taught middle school for seven years and now have preschoolers.  I somehow ended up in the land where people always find farts and boogers hilarious.

 

4.  There are obvious downsides to having a Great Dane - he can clear counters easily, knocks the kids down accidentally, and leaves a trail of gargantuan muddy paw prints.  I learned a new downside the other day.  PSA - It is NOT a good idea to include the Great Dane when one is playing Hide n Seek.  Normally he just barks or whines outside of whichever closet door I'm hiding behind.  But Wednesday?  Oh joyous of days, he got me stuck.  I decided to hide under one of the kid's twin beds.  And the dog followed me under there.  And I got stuck.  Dog didn't leave me any space for maneuvering.  Had to have Mac pull me out by my ankles.

 

5.  Speaking of the dog - I've incurred my first ever library fine because of him.  He ate a book. 

 

6.  Bryan sold his motorcycle.  It was bittersweet.  He listed it Sunday and had sold it by Wednesday afternoon.  He loved that bike but just didn't enjoy riding here.  Texas heat.  Large military base traffic.  No riding buddies.  Let it be known that I did not push him to this decision.  He decided all on his own that it was time to part ways.  The money is going towards his jeep and towards our next embryo transfer.

 

7.  I better wrap this up before the thunderstorm gets here.  The sky is getting progressively darker and the thunder louder.  And I'm on the desktop right next to the window - prime storm viewing space.  So, without further ado, WE HAVE OUR CONTRACTS!!!  Well, at the time of this writing, we have received one already and the other one is coming (two separate families so two separate contracts).  Just need to print, sign and get notarized, and mail back.  And then those snowbabies will be shipped to us!!! (or rather to our clinic, but you get the idea...)

 

 

 

 

 

 



7 Quick Takes - the mixed up jumbled up edition

 

 

1.  By now, the news of the Lewis' Family tragedy has spread across the nation.  Sean graduated with me from UD and Becca graduated two years after us.  Even though we weren't super close, their tragedy has permeated my life since I first heard Tuesday morning.  I know I am not alone.  Any parent cringes to the depths of their soul at the possibility of losing a child.  And one doesn't have to be a parent to feel their pain.  While the tragedy is completely heart wrenching, the response across the nation has been almost equally mind-blowing.  Love has literally rained down upon this family.

•  Two fundraising sites raised $145,000. These funds are going towards the funerals, travel, legal fees, grief counseling/support, and more.               
•  A year long prayer chain has been set up for them.  Please view this sign up for more information or to sign up.
• There is an evolving website that will coordinate support efforts after the funeral.  It is my understanding that even families who are not local can still provide support in some way or another. 
• There are prayer vigils and Masses being organized across the nation for the family.

 

•  
 
• Originally, the funds collected were primarily going towards the medical expenses.  Imagine my amazement when I learned last night that donors of Wyoming Catholic College and insurance will be completely taking care of the bill.  Preliminary estimates had been in the $80,000 range, so this is no small feat.
   

2. I don't really know how to segue from item number one.  So I'll leave this here as a moment of silence and prayer.

 

 

 

 

3.  You know, I thought I had a vague idea of what the military's plans were for my husband for the next few years.  It seems, however, that budget cuts are directly affecting him.  The time between promotion boards is expanding because the military doesn't have the funds to promote with their same frequency (and pay the subsequent salary increases).  This means that though I thought we'd be here until Fall 2015 and then to Leavenworth, KS for school, there may be one more stop in between.  We're in a weird quandry where the military doesn't have the money to PCS families(permanent change of station - move to a new assignment) yet they still say that persons of Bryan's rank can't stay in one place too long. 

 

 

4.  It was my turn to teach preschool last week - letter S.  Our craft ended up pretty easy and actually pretty, even after the three and four year olds used their "crafting magic" on it.  Amazing what classic art can do for a project! 

 

 

 

5.  I hate paying full price for things.  I guess I inherited a sense of frugality, shall we call it, from my dad.  At any rate, I've been pretty thrilled with four different consignment websites I've found.  They're not new in existence, but they're new to me.  And I can buy brand names in great condition for an amount I'm happy to pay. 

• Flipsize - this website is for newborns on up to children's size 10.  I've bought a lot on here and have been mostly happy with my purchases.
• Dashing Bee - this website is for newborns on up to children's size 14.  I've bought a smaller selection of items here (usually only when they're doing their season end clearance) but have been very happy with my purchases.
• Twice - this website is for women.  I haven't bought anything from here yet, but I really love that their website even provides the measurements for items of clothing.  We all know that an 8 is not an 8 across the board, so this is a very helpful feature.
• ThredUp - I'm expecting my first package today or tomorrow and I'm very excited.  This site has clothing for children, juniors, and women, and shoes for all the aforementioned categories.  They have huge selections AND a free 30 return policy.  AND if you click the hyperlink I provided, you'll get an additional $10 off your first purchase.  ;-) 

6.  Embryo adoption news - I haven't forgotten the original purpose of this blog.  WE ARE MATCHED!!!!  Two families, each having two embryos.  One family created their embryos in 2007 and had two children (two separate transfers) before they chose to give up their embryos due to medical problems.  The other family created their embryos in 2008.  They have three children, but only one is from this embryo set (one child via traditional adoption, one from this embryo set, and one surprise natural conception).  We are proceeding towards a transfer in June and will use the older set first.  Whew!


7.  I guess I don't technically have seven quick takes.  However, all my bullet points have to count for something, right?

 

 

 



Biology - part one

I follow a handful of embryo adoption blogs and know that there are a variety of things that the donating couple could be called without incurring much debate:  genetic parents, donating couple, donors...  With embryo adoption, unlike the other traditional forms of adoption, the genetic parents are not the birth parents.  The adoptive parents are the birth parents and that's so cut and dried that there's no grounds for debate on that terminology.

And then you get to the word "biological".  Que discussion.


Option A:  "Biological" can be used interchangeably with "genetic".

Example:  Cora and Mac are not my biological children.  They do not share my genes, my DNA.



Option B:  Biological is tied in with the gestational experience and birth.

Example:  Cora and Mac are my biological children; we shared the biological experience of gestation and birth.  They are who they are today in part because of how my body grew them.



The distinction is not quite as clear cut as one may believe due to a concept called "epigenetics".  Essentially, the woman who carries the pregnancy is more than just a vessel.  In the somewhat recent history of scientific discoveries, researchers have discovered that there are connections formed between the child(ren) in utero and the mother, beyond the inherited DNA.  Everything put into the pregnant woman's body influences the development of the embryos.

I know that we adopted embryos, but I've found clearer wording from egg donation sources.  The following quote is still relevant because in both scenarios, material is introduced in to a woman's body that is genetically foreign. 

Freedom Pharmacy has a booklet about egg donation (p. 10):

“Perhaps the greatest myth surrounds pregnancy. Many believe the uterus is simply an incubator. Nothing could be further from the truth. The most important aspect of all pregnancies- including egg donation pregnancies- is that as the fetus grows, every cell in the developing body is built out of the pregnant mother’s body. Tissue from her uterine lining will contribute to the formation of the placenta, which will link her and her child. The fetus will use her body’s protein, then she will replace it. The fetus uses her sugars, calcium, nitrates, and fluids, and she will replace them. So, if you think of your dream child as your dream house, the genes provide merely a basic blueprint, the biological mother takes care of all the materials and construction, from the foundation right on up to the light fixtures. So, although her husband’s aunt Sara or the donor’s grandfather may have genetically programmed the shape of the new baby’s earlobe, the earlobe itself is the pregnant woman’s “flesh and blood.” That means the earlobe, along with the baby herself, grew from the recipient’s body. That is why she is the child’s biological mother. That is why this child is her biological child.”

Another source elaborates further on the impact of epigenetics and well, egg donation, but, as I said earlier, it's relevant in the discussion of embryo adoption too.

"Genes must be ‘expressed’ within an individual in order to have an effect.

"The same gene or genes can express in a number of different ways depending upon the environment. A gene can remain ’silent’ or unexpressed; it can be expressed strongly; it can be expressed weakly, and so on. There is also an entire field of study called imprinting having to do with which gene you ‘activate,’ the copy you received from your mother, or the copy you received from your father.

"The field of epigenetics studies these phenomenon, and popular journalism is just starting to write about it. While the Human Genome Project was still underway, we usually heard genes referred to as ‘the Bible’ of the human being, as a kind of absolute truth concerning the fundamental nature of the
individual.

"That is now changing.

"In a donor egg pregnancy, the pregnant woman’s womb is the environment.It is her genes, not the donor’s, that determine the expression of thedonor-egg baby’s genes.

"A donor egg baby gets her genes from the donor; she gets the‘instructions’ on the expression of those genes from the woman who carries her to term.

"This means that a donor egg baby has 3 biological parents: a father, the egg donor, and the woman who carries the pregnancy.

"The child who is born would have been a physically & no doubt emotionally different person if carried by his genetic mother.

"In horse breeding for example, it’s not uncommon to implant a pony embryo into the womb of a horse.  The foals that result, are different from normal ponies.They’re bigger. These animals’ genotype – their genes – are the same as a pony’s, but their phenotype – what their genes actually look like in the living animal – is different."


I kind of have mixed feelings about all of this but am struggling to put my thoughts into words.  So, for now I'll ask, what do you think?

Stressed

Moving would be a good reason to be stressed.  Except that we, amazingly enough, already found the next house we want to rent.  It'll be so nice to live in a house that's been loved by its owners, as opposed to the plan white box standard rental.  And it's so nice to check something off our list!  And, as an added perk, the landlords allow all types of dogs, so we might, just might, have another Great Dane in our future!

The approaching embryo transfer could be a good reason to be stressed.  And it is, but not in the way one may think.  We've selected a tentative transfer date, May 10, and are just in a holding pattern with the clinic until it's time to start "manipulating" my cycle. 

Our tax refund came in so now we have the money to finance these last steps.  Another HUGE stressor checked off my list.

One set of genetic parents is on top of things - the infectious disease screening and paperwork.  The other set of GP is MIA and not responding to the agency emails.  It's spring break time so maybe that could account for the gap in communication.  I can keep telling myself that, but I know that it's been several weeks since the Snowflake Program has received communication from this family.  Contracts haven't been signed yet which means embryos can't be shipped yet which means no embryo transfer. 

I'm trying not to be a melodramatic lady, though you may not be able to tell that from my previous sentence.  :-/  We still have some time.  We're about six weeks out from the proposed transfer date - it is definitely still possible!

That brings me to today's prayer request - can you please ask God to give these genetic parents a nudge?  That they please resume communication in a timely manner? 

Fee Comparisons

I've been having a discussion with Leah over at Ignitum Today on her essay "Embryo Adoption:  Is it OK?"  My responses got a little long and I thought I'd bring them over here for greater ease in posting. 

IVF costs an average of $13,000.  Prices will vary by clinic and by location, but this seems to be a reasonable average.  That 13k does not include medications, ICSI, freezing, or the possible use of gamete donors.  While the latter three are not necessary per IVF cycle, medications are.  Without insurance, medications for one IVF cycle run anywhere from $2000 to $5000.  Some insurance companies will cover the medications, but it seems most people pay out of pocket for all these procedures and medications.   At any rate, I’d say a potential IVF couple is looking at a minimum of $15,000 for one IVF cycle.

 

As I mentioned in my previous blog links, one may acquire (for lack of a better word) a set of embryos through a variety of avenues.  (A set could be anywhere from a single embryo to twenty, two to four is the average.)  There is a wide range of services available and a similarly wide range of prices.  The Embryo Adoption Awareness Center has a webpage that provides a matrix of some of the available agencies that describe themselves as offering embryo adoption services.

 

Nightlight Christian Adoption Agency is an adoption agency that does international, domestic, and embryo adoption (they are the pioneers of embryo adoption in the United States).  Nightlight’s Snowflake Adoption Program costs $8000.  Adoptive parents need a home study, which will cost anywhere from $1000-$4000.  There are frozen embryo transfer (FET) fees which run from $2500 - $5000 depending on the clinic.  Plus there are the medications needed for the transfer, which are normally covered by insurance.  Nightlight’s grand total, when one includes the estimated FET fees, is a minimum of $11,500

 

The National Embryo Donation Center (NEDC) is a Christian fertility clinic in Knoxville.  They offer both matching services and the FET on location, but require the adoptive couple to travel to Knoxville twice.  Their fees (include the matching and FET) start at $5022.  A home study is necessary from an outside source, so add another $1000 - $4000.  Plus add the price for two trips to Knoxville ($250 - $1500) and all required medications.  NEDC’s grand total is, at minimum, $6,272.  Note:  In the past, NEDC has partnered with Bethany Christian Services for home studies.  Bethany’s home study, available in many states, costs about $3500.  This would bring the total to a minimum of $8772.  Also important to note is that if one desires an open or semi-open adoption through NEDC, there is an additional fee increase.

 

The Embryo Adoption Services of Cedar Park (EASCP) is essentially a smaller version of Nightlight’s Snowflake Program.  This program does offer an in-house option for a homestudy.  Total program fees including the homestudy are $6575.  EASCP's adoption services alone are $5175.  Additional fees include the FET for $2500 - $5000 and medications.  EASCP’s grand total, when one includes the estimated FET fees, is a minimum of $9075.

 

Miracles Waiting (MW) is rather like a confidential classified advertisement service for both families donating embryos and those families wanting to acquire embryos.  It costs $500 to sign up for the service.  No home study is needed.  The FET is $2500 - $5000 plus medications.  MW’s grand total is, at minimum, $3000.

 

Many fertility clinics have donor embryo programs.  This is very similar to their other donor programs (flip through a book to find anonymous donors with ideal characteristics).  No home study is needed, though some clinics do require counseling if donors are used.  I don’t believe there is any charge for the embryo matching services, so the only fees would be the FET and medications.  Grand total is, at minimum, $2500.

 

The United States Bishops in “LifeGiving Love in an Age of Technology” state that the use of egg, sperm, and embryo donors violates the integrity of the marital act (p.5).  Embryo adoption (p. 12) is referred to as distinctly separate concept from embryo donation yet is still referred to as a source of serious moral concerns.  While no hard and fast definitions of embryo donation and embryo adoption have been provided by the Church, it’s clear that one is in the “no-go” category while the other is in the “proceed only with extreme caution” category.  In my mind, working strictly with a fertility clinic and using their leftover embryos counts as embryo donation.  On the reverse end, working with one of the embryo adoption agencies in existence (like Nightlight, Cedar Park, and NEDC) seems to count as embryo adoption.  I’m not entirely sure how matching forums like Miracles Waiting and Embryos Alive (not profiled above because I couldn’t find pricing info) would be described.  Personally I think they fall more towards the “embryo donation” range of things. 

 

Miracles Waiting is doing everything required by law – embryos are “property” so the exchange between donors/recipients is practiced as an exchange of goods while being mindful of state specific human tissue laws.

 

As a Catholic, however, one must do everything within one’s power to treat said embryos in a way that reflects their full human dignity.  Which means to go beyond the legal mandates.  Beyond to what?  Well, that’s where one can reasonably disagree.  I would argue, though, that as much as possible normal adoptive steps should be followed.  These steps allow not only for the proper disposition/handling of the embryos, but also for the education of both placing and receiving couples on the necessary roles within an adoptive setting. 

 

What is the easiest route is not always the best route to take, especially in such a hotly contested grey area of Church bioethics.  The extra mile must be traversed.  This does not mean the most expensive is best, just that all options must be weighed equally.  One must look beyond the attraction of a cheap price.

 

In general, there are many benefits an agency can provide that other matching sources cannot. 

·         Agencies provide detailed background information on the genetic parents, regardless of the openness of the match (Nightlight specifically provides three generations of family medical history plus pictures and a written family profile). 

·         Agencies demand accountability for each embryo with strict stipulations – no selective reductions; some say no surrogates; only thaw what you are prepared to carry – thus honoring the dignity/health of both embryos and adoptive mother.

·         Agencies exist as a mediator between placing and adoptive parents.  This mediation is available beyond the match.  Nightlight, for example, will mediate communication at least until any resulting children are eighteen years old.

·         Agency adoptions have a set contract that all placing/adoptive parents use.  The language in the contract is modeled off of existing infant adoptions (as applicable) which further protects both parties.

·         Agencies act as intermediaries between adoptive parents and the fertility clinic.  All clinics require contracts.  All contracts will ask something along the lines of what happens to the embryos in the event of a disaster.  Our specific contract provided limited options – destroy embryos or donate to science.  Both are morally unacceptable.  Working with an agency allows one to designate a moral option – return the embryos back to the agency’s supervision.

The long and short of it is IVF is more expensive than embryo adoption and embryo donation.  Some forms of EA/ED can be very affordable.  However, for a Catholic, I’d argue that not all available forms are acceptable.

Back in the Game

Now that our house in Virginia is finally rented, we're jumping back into the adoption arena again!

While there are many different ways to pursue embryo adoption or embryo donation, we feel very strongly that a traditional adoption process (or as close as one can get) is the most dignified manner of adopting embryos.

This means we'll first procure a home study through a local agency.  Last time we worked with Bethany Christian Services for this step.  They were an expensive choice, but worth it, we thought, because they were located nationwide. We thought future home studies could be streamlined by always working with the same agency.  And then God laughed, because the Army sent us to a state in which Bethany has no presence. 

Instead of Bethany, we're now going to be working with Generations Adoptions (out of Waco) for our home study.  Lucky for us, this agency's home study is way cheaper than last time.  Woo hoo!

Once our home study is completed, we'll move on to the embryo adoption part with Nightlight's Snowflake Program. 

Here's the projected timeline, but since so much of the paperwork has to be compiled from third parties, it's anyone's guess as to the actual timeline.  We also try to not move on to the next step until the prior step is paid for.  Since we're a one income family this time around, things may move a little more slowly due to finances.

October - submit initial paperwork for the home study.
Late fall - complete home study; submit Nightlight's Snowflake application
Late winter - early Spring 2013 - complete Snowflake paperwork; be matched with embryos
Late Spring 2013 - embryo transfer prep and embryo transfer

And I know, now that I've published the projected timeline, that things will not go according to plan.  That's life.  If nothing else, I'm making this public so you can nag me about completing paperwork.  ;-)

Home studies vary a bit from agency to agency.  Here's our checklist for Generations' contracted home study, just to give you a feel for the process.

STEP 1

• Submission of the application for contracted home study
• Submission of supporting documents:
• photo of couple
• photos of home exterior (including front and back yards)
• criminal background check
• copies of drivers licenses
• lists of addresses (include county) for past 10 years
• fingerprinting ($44.20 per adult in the home)
• provide a floor plan of the home (including dimensions of rooms and purposes)
• provide directions to home
• provide autobiography for each parent
• statement of income (last year's W-2 form)
• copy of savings and checking account statements for 2 months
• proof of health insurance coverage
• proof of life insurance coverage
• five references (four from non-relatives, one from a relative) - agency will contact from addresses in application
• proof of employment (pay stubs for each parent)
• good employment record (resume for each parent)
• copy of marriage license
• birth certificates for entire fmaily
• medical evaluation forms for entire family
• sign acknowledgment of behavior policy

STEP 2

• Home study visit completed (with all family members present)
• Environmental inspection
• fire inspection
• $1500.00 home study fee

There are a few key differences that we've already noted between Bethany and Generations.  Price.  The number of interviews (Bethany required four, I think, and Generations just one).  Number of references (Bethany required fewer than Generations).  Depth of list of addresses (means we've got to include a UD address!).

Not only do I have my work cut out for me, if I'm to make my personal goal of submitting Step 1 items by October 1, but I'll also need to start nagging Bryan.  Some couples may operate differently, but I make him write his own autobiography.  And let me tell you, writing an autobiography is not one of his favorite ways to pass time.

Me and the Media

Our last few weeks in Virginia, I decided that I didn't have enough on our plate with packing, renting out our house, researching places to live in Texas, and the normal day to day toddler antics. Given my ample free time (hah!), I agreed to be interviewed by a reporter out of Northern Virginia for a piece on embryo adoption.

I was beyond nervous as the interview approached. Would I be represented fairly? Would the Church's point of view be represented appropriately (both by me and then through the editing stage)? How would the kids behave during the filming?

I'll be honest, filming was tough. I was wired for sound and had to attempt to sit in one spot on my couch for an hour while the kids roamed about. And by roamed about, I mean over, under, and around me. Overall, though, the newspeople were able to piece together a decent clip.

There's also a short article that accompanied the news footage: "Controversial Embryo Adoptions on the Rise".

My largest complaint is that the reporter/editor spelled our son's name wrong - he's Mac and not Max. And if that's the only complaint I have, I think everything turned out okay.

Perspective as a "snowflake" mom

I'm sure all parents hear a running commentary on who their offspring favors, the dad or the mom.  For us it's been kind of an inside joke as people say "oh Mac looks just like you!" or "Cora looks like her daddy!"  These are mostly passing comments, from strangers we'll never see again.  These are easy to handle - we just smile and half-nod in agreement and stroll on.

Even the comments of how little they favor me are normally pretty easy to handle.  "We like to keep people guessing!" 

I guess I could always go into more detail.  But really, the person behind me in line at the grocery store check out does not need to hear Cora and Mac's life story.

I couldn't get away with a simple answer anyway.  Most of the time people point out how different they look from each other - Cora has brown hair, grey eyes, and olive skin;  Mac blonde hair, blue eyes, creamy skin.  If I were to say they're adopted, then whomever is asking the questions automatically assumes they're not related to each other. 

So then I have to explain that while they're adopted, Cora and Mac are 100% related to each other.  That's when either the questioner turns into a nosy nellie and fires away questions, or looks away quickly, brow furrowed in confusion.

Sometimes I've had great conversations - both my dental hygienist and my endocrinologist were fascinated by embryo adoption.  Other times, the conversations just get awkward.  Umm, no, we didn't purchase fertilized eggs. 

Most of the time, I just stick with smiling and nodding.

********************************************************************************

We were strolling around a local bookstore's children's area today and Cora picked out a book called "Snowflake Baby".  I was halfway to putting it up when I realized the irony, that my snowflake baby had just handed me "Snowflake Baby".  I bought it.  The short story has nothing to do with embryo adoption but instead shows colorful pictures of a baby romping in the snow with a puppy.  Ah well.

********************************************************************************

Now that we're in Advent, we've been reading a lot of Christmas themed books.  And playing with a child-friendly manger scene.  I try to use consistent language when introducing the holy characters to Mac and Cora.  "This is Mary; she's baby Jesus's Momma".  "Here's a picture of Christ the King - that's baby Jesus when He's all grown up".  About half the time I introduce St. Joseph as "Jesus's adopted Daddy". 

It's true the kids are still young (almost 17 months) and can't understand the concept of adoption yet.  Nonetheless, I want them to grow up realizing that adoption is a positive thing.  After all, we do have St. Joseph as a pretty amazing example!

Basic Defense of Embryo Adoption, Part II

I originally wrote this in January 2009, right as we were entering into the matching phase with the Snowflake Program.  Part Two addresses major objections raised in Dignitas Personae.

Objection Four: Embryos, as “treatment for infertility” are not ethically acceptable. The direct quote from DP is “ 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 procreation illicit as well as any form of surrogate motherhood…”

Refutation: (Here I deviate slightly from providing specific rebuttals to asking pointed questions.) By “treatment for infertile couples”, does the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) mean offered as standard practice by reproductive endocrinologists or fertility clinics? If so, then yes, EA under these auspices would be morally reprehensible as it denies the individual worth of each embryo, treating one as a commodity instead of a precious life. Many defenseless lives would be bartered for the sole goal of experiencing pregnancy. The needs of the parents would supersede the dignity of the embryonic life. The end goal would be experiencing pregnancy, not becoming a parent and thereby saving a life. 

Contrast that to embryonic adoption in a different context. A couple accepts their infertility and ceases the barrage of testing and treatments. They begin wading through paperwork with adoption agencies and complete a home study. Matches are made between genetic parents and adoptive parents. The only involvement a fertility clinic plays is the transfer itself. The end goal is saving the life of the child and achieving parenthood.

By the use of the word “treatment”, the CDF seems to imply that some sort of cure is being sought. And, for most people, cures are obtained at a medical facility, not an adoption agency. As a couple dealing with male infertility, neither some sort of embryo “treatment” nor pregnancy could cure my husband. Why such an odd phrase by the CDF? Furthermore, embryo adoption is not even specifically referred to in this paragraph - how exactly does EA fit into all this?

In America there is a marked difference between embryo adoption and embryo donation. Perhaps the CDF was referring to embryo donation when using the term “treatment for infertility”? With donation, the couple (or individual) goes to the local fertility clinic and essentially buys a leftover embryo. It’s cheaper, faster, and incredibly impersonal. The embryo is considered in its legal sense, as property, rather than in its true sense, a human being.

Objection Five : Another quote from DP: “This practice [treatment for infertility] would also lead to other problems of a medical, psychological, and legal nature.”

Refutation: Through our adoption process with Nightlight, we have been required to complete a rigorous home study and education on rearing adopted children and ART children specifically. We will be privy to three generations of the genetic family’s medical history once a definite match is made. Our contract is considered to be legally binding. We are planning on maintaining written contact with the genetic family (mediated through the agency) precisely so we will be able to administer to the psychological needs of our adopted children. Both family members and close family friends have first hand experience with adoption and/or rearing of special needs children, if we would need such expertise. All in all, we feel that we are doing everything possible in preparation for offering life to some of the least of God’s children.

Objection Six: There is only one paragraph in Dignitas Personae that clearly deals with some form of prenatal adoption. The fourth paragraph from section 19 states: “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 [in paragraph on “treatment for infertility”].

Refutation: Embryos cryopreserved in England have a very limited life span as most (if not all) cryo-banks have a strict three year freezing time limit. When the last cryo-bank “cleansing” came up, many many individuals, couples, and even nuns offered their wombs so that these orphaned embryos would not suffer such indignity at the bidding of the government. However, these well intentioned individuals were offering their wombs just for the sake of gestating the endangered embryos. After birth, the women planned on offering the newborns for adoption. 

This scenario is fully an act of “embryo rescue” and is a far cry different from embryo adoption. Furthermore, these actions constitute surrogacy. The “adoptive” mother raises the embryo only for the duration of the pregnancy. In the end, the embryo has been spared death, but is left abandoned once again. “Prenatal adoption” that is solely rescue and devoid of concern for the post-birth life of the child is not granting the child the dignity he/she is due.

As mentioned previously, by pursuing embryo adoption through Nightlight’s Snowflake program, we are signing legally binding documents to care for our adopted embryos for the full duration of their life, be that a few moments or several decades. Furthermore, embryos in America are not in imminent danger of destruction though our current President could change that… The contrast is pronounced.

Objection Seven (last one!): Pope John Paul II’s quote “there seems to be no morally licit solution regarding the human destiny of the … frozen embryos…”

Refutation: For starters, reading JPII’s quote in its original context is extremely enlightening. His whole speech is concerned with the natural rights of the embryo, beginning with the most basic, the right to life. Similarly, he rightfully claims that it is the duty of each government to preserve such a right. I feel it’s necessary to look at not just JPII’s quote in Dignitas Personae, but also the surrounding lines in his original speech: 
           

“I therefore 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. I also call on all jurists to work so that States and international institutions will legally recognize the natural rights of the very origin of human life and will likewise defend the inalienable rights which these thousands of “frozen” embryos have intrinsically acquired from the moment of fertilization.

John Paul could not be more clear that the right to life is one of these aforementioned inalienable rights. How is EA not awarding these neglected embryos some chance at a normal, just life?

DP precedes John Paul’s quote with the statement that the “thousands of abandoned embryos represent a situation of injustice which in fact cannot be resolved.”  I agree. No amount of human atonement can make up for the injustices these embryos have already received due to the illicit nature of their creation. There is no way to undo the injustice of being conceived in a lab, man and wife forsaken for a doctor and syringe. While the injustice and illicitness of their creation cannot be resolved, one can, perhaps, begin to restore the God-given inalienable right to life via embryo adoption. It is only out of the cryo-bank, and in the womb, that these embryos will finally get the chance to live as God intended. When such an option exists, one that will provide these embryos not only a chance at life but a family, how can one refuse?

Basic Defense of Embryo Adoption, Part I

I originally wrote this in January 2009, right as we were entering into the matching phase with the Snowflake Program.  Part One addresses major objections pre-dating Dignitas Personae.

Objection One: EA is a form of surrogacy. 

Refutation: Donum Vitae (DV) defines surrogate mother as “the woman who carries in pregnancy an embryo implanted in her uterus and who is genetically a stranger to the embryo because it has been obtained through the union of the gametes of “donors”. She carries the pregnancy with a pledge to surrender the baby once it is born to the party who commissioned or made the agreement for the pregnancy.” While we’ve heard the first line quoted over and over, the second line is often forgotten. By going through Nightlight’s embryo adoption program, we pledge not to use a surrogate. Any and all embryos we adopt will be raised as our own children. While the embryo is not flesh of my flesh, the child is being accepted into my womb to be raised as our child for the duration of his or her life. How could one view embryo adoption, as we are pursuing it, as a form of surrogacy?

Objection Two: Any procreation outside the marital act is illicit.

Refutation: How does one define “procreate”? DV states that all procreation outside of marriage is illicit. However, at the time of writing (1987-1988), separating conception from gestation was largely hypothetical. And yet here we are today. I agree completely with DV – procreation (emphasis my own) outside the marital embrace is illicit. However, I would go one step further and distinguish between conception and gestation. If possible, I would clarify the quote from DV to state that all fertilizations outside the womb are illicit. Most embryos up for adoption at Nightlight have been frozen for three to seven years. We are physically distant from the act of conception/fertilization. How can one claim that we are active participants in such an act? 

Father Tad Pacholczyk, director of education at the National Catholic Bioethics Center, states in “On the Moral Objectionability of Human Embryo Adoption” that “embryo adoption indeed opens her womb to an embryo produced by strangers, and I would posit that such an action illicitly invokes her procreative powers apart from a marital act with her husband.” Aren’t procreative powers used in creating a new life? In EA, however, that new life has already been created. It is indeed a shame that we are of such a day and age that a distinction between conception and gestation is necessary. Nonetheless, we cannot deny the advances in reproductive technologies which have made such a distinction necessary. My womb alone is not procreative. If so, many, many sterile women would be deemed capable of procreative acts merely because they have a womb that is hospitable to embryonic life. And yet we know that is not true. A hospitable womb will never of its own accord generate a human life. 

John Haas, president of the National Catholic Bioethics Center, similarly stated in the December 22, 2008 issue of Our Sunday Visitor, “When a couple marry, they place at the disposal of one another the capacity each has for engendering new life. This exchange is mutual, personal and exclusive. Achieving “pregnancy” through any other means violates the integrity of this marital union.” While these sentences are the hingepoint for his argument against EA, I would use them as an occasion to once again show the distinction between EA and other ART. For starters, we are not “engendering” a new life, we are providing a home for a previously created embryo. Conception outside the womb clearly violates the marital union – adoption or gestation do not. Furthermore, nothing that we’re doing is promoting such a creation. We did not contract with a couple actively pursuing IVF. None of our money will go to reimburse the genetic parents. The fertility clinic will only be paid for the transfer. How can one assert that adoptive parents are at fault for the conception?

Objection Three: EA is scandalous. Or, EA will create a demand for IVF.

Refutation: At a surface glance, the connections between EA and IVF are undeniable. The question remains – how much are the potential adoptive parents to blame for the origins of the embryos? Well, for starters, even if fertility clinics ceased to produce a single extra embryo, we still would have hundreds of thousands of unwanted embryos in cryo-banks throughout the nation. While it’s possible a couple may enter into IVF solely because they know they can hand off their left-over embryos when they’re all done, this scenario is rather unlikely. Additionally, Nightlight states clearly that they hope to do themselves out of a job (their embryo program). They are not out to make money off of EA. While we pay adoption fees to Nightlight’s embryo adoption program, not a single dollar goes to the genetic parents. They are not recompensed for their expenses. Similarly, the local fertility clinic will only be paid for the transfer itself, not for any back storage fees or for “purchasing an embryo”. I have a difficult time seeing how our EA actions will create a demand.

Many people have addressed the scandal issue of EA, that we are supporting IVF by our proximity. I must ask, does proximity alone yield support? Adopting a child conceived of rape does not indicate support of that rape. How does adopting an embryo conceived through IVF then support that illicit act? The article “Ethical Considerations in Defense of Embryo Adoption” presents another interesting comment on EA and scandal:
           

“As a final reflection, it is enlightening to consider the similarities between

embryo adoption and the practice of buying slaves out of slavery. The initial offense committed toward the captive life can make it difficult to imagine an act of rescue as entirely separate from the injustice of slavery – or, in the present case, IVF and cryopreservation. Nevertheless, the inestimable good of the life that is saved legitimizes any unsavory proximity to these institutions, so long as formal cooperation and active scandal is avoided.”

Common Misconceptions about Embryo Adoption

(I originally wrote this in April 2009 and posted it on my personal blog; I’ve edited it only slightly.)

I realize that most of you probably never had these questions.  However, Bryan and I have come across a large number of misinformed people (both in person and through blog-hopping) and I just want to clarify.  Perhaps, there is an off chance that some random person may have their burning EA questions answered by reading this.  :-)

First, we did not commission the creation of these embryos.  (Actually got that question from a Church friend).  EA, at least through Nightlight's Snowflake Adoption Program, is not a mail-order baby program.  There are not couples anxiously waiting to be chosen so they can then begin their IVF program and give us the "leftovers".  As a side note, our twins were created in January 2006; that alone should disprove the above theory.

Second, we did not contribute to the IVF industry.  The genetic parents were not compensated for anything they did.  The fertility clinic was paid only for our frozen embryo transfer.  Point seven elaborates on this too.

Third, the Catholic Church has not issued a definitive stance on embryo adoption.  The Catholic Church, in the fairly recent Dignitas Personae, is clearly negative towards EA.  However, she (the Church) refrained from using the same definitive language as has been used in discussing IVF and embryo stem cell research - gravely immoral.  We've since seen that even the great theologians within the Church are still divided on EA.  In theory, the majority of people find it admirable, if somewhat problematic.  In practice, as we have found, the fertility clinics are the weak link.  I don't think anyone could find Nightlight's Snowflake Adoption Program to be morally reprehensible.  However, the fertility clinics are like wolves in sheep's clothing (more on this in number ten).  Currently, we're being mindful of the theory of probabilism - when two moral routes exist from an undefined topic, it is acceptable to choose the route that is supported by the minority opinion. 

Fourth, we did not pursue EA in hopes that our own fertility would be miraculously restored.  To date, I don't believe there have been any documented cases of a sudden return of fertility following embryo adoption.  Furthermore, how would embryo adoption (me carrying a pregnancy) undo male infertility?  I’m not sure how any amount of hormonal shifts that I experienced could evoke a cure in my husband!

Fifth, embryo adoption does not involve my eggs or Bryan's sperm.  You'd be surprised how often we got asked this.  I'll explain more on this in number seven.  So for now, I'll just say that embryos are fertilized eggs, possessing a full unique set of DNA. 

Sixth, we did not choose embryo adoption in hopes of concealing our own infertility from the world.  We do not pretend that our future children are our own genetic offspring.  No, I don’t spill the beans every time someone asks if my daughter looks like her daddy; but I also don’t secret away their unique origin.  The grocery story check out is not generally the best time to discuss embryo adoption.  Our children are not going to feel inferior, by any means, but they will know that they were hand-picked by God to be OUR children and that we will love them indefinitely.  Adoption is not going to be a bad word in our household. 

Seventh, EA and IVF are not the same thing!  Let's talk basics.  In in vitro fertilization (IVF), eggs are harvested from the wife (or obtained from a donor) after several weeks of hormone injections.   Hormones are used so that the woman will produce far more follicles than normal.  Sperm are obtained either from the husband (or a donor).  After both gametes are collected, the lab will then fertilize some or all of the eggs.  Some labs will fertilize all the eggs and then choose only the "best" embryos to transfer, freezing the rest.  Other labs will only fertilize a few and then transfer all resulting embryos.  Some couples may have enough embryos to attempt several embryo transfers.  Some couples may have enough frozen gametes left for the lab to fertilize more later on for subsequent transfer attempts.  Some couples may have to repeat the entire harvesting process again, if not enough eggs were claimed the first time.   Some couples may use donors for both gametes.  As you can see, there's a lot of variation. 

The embryo transfer (ET) is the very last step in the IVF process.  At this point, the fertilized egg (the embryo), whether frozen or fresh, is transferred from the lab to the woman.  If Bryan and I were to contribute our own gametes, we would be contributing directly to the IVF process.  Instead, embryo adoption takes place years after all of the previous procedures take place.  The purpose of the medications I used was to pinpoint the best transfer date.  Frozen embryos are typically thawed and grown for up to several days before the ET is to take place.  For example, if we had transferred five day old embryos, then my meds would have stimulated my uterus to be five days past ovulation for the day of the transfer.

Eighth, we have no hopes of becoming "octomom" or one day gaining our own TLC special.  Most fertility clinics already subscribe to the recommendations set in place by the ASRM (American Society for Reproductive Medicine).  In addition to these recommendations, Nightlights' Snowflake Program firmly discourages transferring more than three embryos at a time.  This decision was made out of concern for both the health of the mother and any surviving babies.  (I said "surviving" because not all embryos may survive the thaw and not all embryos may survive the transfer.)  I guess it is possible that one of the embryos could split and we could hypothetically end up with quadruplets.  However, there have been no recorded cases of quadruplets during Snowflake Program and only a few cases of triplets.  As Nightlight strictly prohibits selective reduction and also keeps very careful records, I feel confident that their information is accurate. 

Ninth, we have not given up on traditional adoption.  Bryan and I still dream of a large family.  Embryo adoption appealed to us in many ways:  I can carry a pregnancy, it's faster, we're young, and these embryos are in high-need.  However, traditional adoption still appeals to us as well.  With news that the average domestic infant adoption is taking longer and longer (two to five years in certain parts of the country, without regard to racial distinctions), I’m leaning towards additional embryo adoption for the near future, but we’ll see where God takes us.

Tenth, embryo adoption is currently not THE perfect solution.  If one only had to solely deal with Nightlight's Snowflake Program, I would be much more confident that all decisions are being made for the good of each embryo.  However, fertility clinics perform the transfer.  And they are sneaky.  I think embryo adoption can be a good and moral option, but one has to be constantly vigilant and read every bit of information carefully.  Consider our "Consent to Transport the Embryos" contract.  The contract asked what the clinic is to do with the embryos if both of us died - the only two options given were terminate the embryos or donate them to research (which is terminating them!).  Another section asked what the clinic should do if we stopped paying our storage fees  - the only two options again were terminate or donate to research.  After I spoke with our case worker at Nightlight, I learned that every individual has the right to modify a contract.  So, we struck out every immoral option and replaced it with something acceptable.  In both of those scenarios, any remaining embryos would have been returned to Nighlight's Snowflake Program to be adoptable once more (which is what our case-worker recommended).

Another sneaky phrase the fertility clinics use a lot in their contracts is "medically acceptable".  For example, only those embryos which are determined to be viable and "medically acceptable" will be transferred.  We crossed out that phrase every time we came to it.  I'm pretty sure that the doctor's definition of "medically acceptable" and my definition would not have coincided. 

And then there’s the whole business of making “perfect babies”.  My children’s genetic father has polycystic kidney disease.  Each of his offspring has a 50% chance of developing pkd.  We read the disclosure statements written by the genetic family, researched the disease, and then made the decision to move forward.  Our transfer, however, nearly didn’t happen because our fertility doctor struggled with whether or not he could ethically perform the transfer.  He’s in the business of giving people perfect children – he had never been confronted by someone wanting to adopt the imperfect ones.

In summation, we know we navigated a very careful path and perhaps not all people would be willing or able to do such. 

Absence

My original goal in starting this blog was to publish about one post a week.  However, with my husband deployed (three months down, probably nine to go), sometimes life gets busy.  And then we had family visiting for the last week.  After being on my own with the twins, it was fantastic to spend time with family - so I didn't spend much time on the computer.

The twins' first birthday is approaching and I need to get one of their presents sent to the publisher.  Pint Size Productions lets you custom design a board book.  My goal is to present all of my children (present and future) with a "story of me" for their first birthday.  I'm not sure how long the turn around time is for the board book, so that is my next writing priority.  And then back to the blog!

I'm hoping to post a version of the "story of me" on here so you can get a feel for how we're introducing the concept of embryo adoption and adoption to our children. 

What is Embryo Adoption Anyway?

In the United States, it is extremely common for a couple to have multiple embryos created with each IVF attempt.  A few other countries (Germany and Italy, I believe, though I’d have to check my facts) have laws that limit the number of embryos created to the number that one would then transfer in the same cycle, effectively eliminating any excess.  America has no such laws. 

United States fertility clinics typically counsel their IVF couples to choose one of the following plans for any excess embryos:  leave them frozen, donate them to science, or destroy them.  Some IVF couples are turning to a fourth option – donating their remaining embryos to other couples. 

There are a variety of ways a couple may choose to donate their embryos.  On one end of the spectrum, there are couples who may donate their embryos to their fertility clinic.  If these embryos are then selected by another couple, it would be done completely anonymously.  On the other end of the spectrum, there are those placing couples who work with an embryo adoption service to handpick the adoptive parents – the genetic parents may even formulate an open adoption relationship with the adoptive parents.

The first scenario described falls into the category of “embryo donation”.  The genetic parents have relegated all parental responsibility to the fertility clinic.  By law, embryos are considered property, not persons.  With donation, the interested couple (or individual) goes to the local fertility clinic and picks a suitable match based on a list of physical characteristics.  Depending on state law, surrogates may be allowed. In comparison to adoption, donation is cheaper, faster, and incredibly impersonal.  The end goal of embryo donation is pregnancy.  Here the embryo is considered in its legal sense, as property, rather than in its true sense, a human being.

As proof of this ideology, consider the following quote from an American Society of Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) Ethics Committee Report in 2009:

 “Requiring infertile patients who need donor gametes or patients who need donor embryos to suffer the imposition of unnecessary administrative and legal trappings of adoption and the costs that accompany them is not ethically justifiable. The donation of embryos for reproductive purposes is fundamentally a medical procedure intended to result in pregnancy and should be treated as such.” ASRM Ethics Committee Report. American Society for Reproductive Medicine: Defining Embryo Donation. Fertility Sterility, 2009;92(6):1818-9.

This mindset proves just how important it is to distinguish between embryo donation and embryo adoption.

The second scenario falls into the category of “embryo adoption”.  The adopting couple must complete a home study with an accredited adoption agency before any adoption proceedings may take place.  Adoptive parents are counseled on ways to tell their children of their unique origin.  Matches are mutually conducted between genetic parents and adoptive parents.  Many embryo adoption services do not allow surrogates.  The only involvement a fertility clinic plays is the transfer itself.  Though not legally accepted as a form of adoption (except in the state of Georgia), embryo adoption is patterned as closely as possible off of pre-existing infant adoption standards/guidelines.  The end goal in embryo adoption is saving the life of the embryo(s) and achieving parenthood.

And in between the two scenarios are a whole host of organizations.  Some do not require home studies, some do.  Many solely exist to facilitate matches between donating couples and adopting couples.  Future posts will offer a more detailed look at many of the embryo adoption or embryo donation services in existence.

Side Note:  The term “snowflake” was coined by Nightlight Christian Adoptions to reflect how these frozen embryos are wholly unique, just like a snowflake.  Started in 1997, their Snowflakes Embryo Adoption Program is the oldest EA program in the United States.

Topics for the Future

(please note:  these are arranged randomly, not in order of importance or interest, but merely in the order that my brain was working at the moment of typing)

1.     Annotated bibliography of sources/suggested reading list

2.    What is a snowflake?

3.    Common embryo transfer and embryo adoption terminology

4.    Common misconceptions

5.    Defense of embryo adoption before the release of Dignitas Personae

6.    Defense of embryo adoption after the release of Dignitas Personae

7.    Embryo adoption versus embryo donation

8.    Analysis of different embryo adoption agencies

9.    Matching criteria

10. Contracts with fertility clinics

11. Medical protocol for the embryo transfer

12. Preserving dignity of each embryo through the embryo transfer

13. Why the Church’s position is just

14. Open versus closed adoption

15. Telling your children of their unique origin (given the young age of our kids, this will be more sharing resources than personal experience)

Is there anything you’d like me to address that isn’t mentioned above?  Are there any points mentioned above that are of special interest to you?