GESTIÓN EN SALUD PÚBLICA: BioEdge: Another IVF mix-up creates a child and destroys a marriage

domingo, 15 de septiembre de 2019

BioEdge: Another IVF mix-up creates a child and destroys a marriage

BioEdge: Another IVF mix-up creates a child and destroys a marriage

Bioedge

Another IVF mix-up creates a child and destroys a marriage

by Michael Cook | 15 Sep 2019 |

^{Drew Wasilewski and Kristina Koedderich}

For headline writers, IVF is the gift that keeps on giving. The latest kerfuffle involves a white couple from New Jersey who sought help from the Institute for Reproductive Medicine and Science at Saint Barnabas in 2012 – spending, they claimed in court papers, US$500,000.

When the baby was born to Kristina Koedderich and Drew Wasilewski, it had Southeast Asian features.

A DNA test showed that there is “0% probability” that Mr Wasilewski is the biological father. The strain of the mix-up caused by the clinic’s negligence caused the couple’s marriage to break up. “The last four years have been a nightmare. Why would someone deserve this when they are just trying to have a child of their own?” Mr Wasilewski told the New York Post. “You start questioning everything. What is going on? Is it the wife or is it the hospital? You are filled with all kinds of emotions. You’re confused. It’s extremely hard on your emotions. You don’t know how to deal with it.”

The court has ordered the clinic to compile a list of sperm donors who might be the girl’s biological father. The parents want to know so that they can learn about their now-6-year-old daughter’s genetic history — and give her a chance to have a relationship with her biological dad in the future.

They also want to know if Drew’s semen was used to conceive a child for another couple. “I would very much like to be involved,” he said. “I think, as children, you want to know who — who and where you came from. And — I believe I’m a very good person. And I’d like them to know who I am, as a person, learn about me as much as I learned about my mother and father.”

The couple is seeking unspecified monetary damages, saying the clinic’s mistake caused “great pain, suffering, permanent injuries and disabilities, as well as the loss of enjoyment of the quality of life.”

Michael Cook is editor of BioEdge

Conscientious objection to procedures like abortion and euthanasia often features in BioEdge. There is a growing consensus that CO has no place in modern medicine. It’s often argued nowadays that a doctor’s duty is to carry out the wishes of patients, regardless of whether they agree with them or not.

I stumbled across an interesting hypothetical on the American Medical Association Journal of Ethics which makes me question this consensus. In it, three bioethicists analyse a situation involving a difficult patient with deep Christian convictions. He is refusing post-operative pain medication because he believes that he needs to suffer in order to atone for his life as an alcoholic. What should the physician do?

The bioethicists conclude that he should neither acquiesce nor refer the patient to another doctor who will acquiesce. Instead, the physician should “refuse to offer this course of action, regardless of the religious rationale for such a request”.

They go on to assert that “Indeed, as part of their professional commitment to the patient’s health, physicians have some obligation to respectfully challenge patients' refusals of medical care that the physician believes is needed. A sincere discussion—even a respectful debate—in no way denigrates [his] religious beliefs.”

Indeed, this makes good sense. But, viewed from another angle, the bioethicists are advising the physician to conscientiously object to a course of action determined by a lucid patient after serious consideration. They even counsel him to argue (respectfully) with the patient to convince him that he is wrong.

If this is so obviously the case, why is it wrong for a doctor to refuse to perform an abortion? I’m having trouble reconciling the ethical reasoning of the two situations. Can anyone help?