ABSTRACT

On fi rst examination, oocyte freezing should raise no objections of an ethical nature, particularly if its aim is to improve the chances of success of assisted reproduction techniques (ARTs). In practice, however, this is not the case, and the technique is challenged on at least two grounds. The fi rst is that, as it is always part of a medical plan for assisted conception, at least some people consider it as offending the dignity of procreation. The second argument addresses the experimental nature of the technique and the fact that, at least in its early stages, it was applied in spite of unfavorable preliminary data suggesting that the product of conception would be subject to a signifi cant risk of malformation. There is a third point, which might open up a bioethical debate, namely that the technique offers the opportunity of preserving the fertility of individuals for a more or less distant future. Currently, however, this topic attracts little attention, particularly due to the limited effi ciency of oocyte cryopreservation techniques. To gain a better understanding of the criticisms addressed against ARTs, mostly formulated by the Roman Catholic Magisterium, we need to refer back to the fi rst debate held on this topic in 1984 by the Pontifi cal Academy of Science in Rome. On that occasion, half a dozen scientists specializing in this fi eld gathered in the Vatican gardens to discuss the biological and moral problems raised by in vitro fertilization (IVF) before a wide audience of theologians. Howard Jones, who published a lengthy report on the meeting, wrote: “Towards the end of the conference it became clear that there was general agreement on declaring in vitro fertilization ethically acceptable. There was, however, one dissenter, namely Monsignor Carlo Caffarra, the President of the John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family, appointed to that offi ce by the Pope. He held staunchly to his position that in vitro fertilization is illegal since the resulting conception falls outside the bonds of conjugal love and does not result from the natural process of sexual intercourse.” This was in fact the key issue underpinning all Catholic criticism of the new technique, based on the view that separating sexual and reproductive life is unlawful as it offends the dignity of procreation.