The Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith’s Dignitas personae doesnotofferadefinitiverejectionofthepracticeofhumanembryoadoptionas intrinsicallyevil,butneitherdoesitsimplyleavethematteran“openquestion.” The document does indeed oppose the practice, but its reasons for doing so are notclearlystatedandseemtobeintensionwithitsownaffirmationsofthe personal dignity of embryos and the goodness of adoption. The Congregation’s opposition is therefore best read as a prudential judgment that embryo adoption cannotbejustifiedinthepresentcircumstancesduetothepotentialforscandal and the cooperation with the fertility industry which it involves. National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly 10.2(Summer2010):307–328.
embryo adoption Catholic bioethics Dignitas Personae, frozen embryo adoption moral theological analysis, Grabowski Gross embryo adoption considerations, Congregation Doctrine Faith embryo adoption position, intrinsic evil embryo adoption prudential judgment, human embryo personal dignity adoption ethics, Catholic moral theology IVF embryo adoption cooperation, embryo rescue scandal fertility industry ethics, Dignitas Personae reproductive technology moral evaluation, bioethics frozen embryo disposition Catholic teaching
DOI 10.5840/ncbq201010255 10.5840/ncbq201010255
Cite this article
Grabowski, J. S., & Gross, C. (2010). Dignitas personae and the Adoption of Frozen Embryos: A New Chill Factor?. The national Catholic bioethics quarterly, 10(2), 307-328. https://doi.org/10.5840/ncbq201010255
Grabowski JS, Gross C. Dignitas personae and the Adoption of Frozen Embryos: A New Chill Factor?. Natl Cathol Bioeth Q. 2010;10(2):307-328. doi:10.5840/ncbq201010255
Grabowski, John S., and Christopher Gross. "Dignitas personae and the Adoption of Frozen Embryos." The national Catholic bioethics quarterly, vol. 10, no. 2, 2010, pp. 307-328.
Mirkes R, 2020·The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly
This How does the Catholic Church guide infertile couples to exercise their right to build a family? Part One examines the principal tenets of Catholic social teaching on human rights in general. Part Two focuses in particular on the Church’s guidelines regarding the right to family planning for infertile couples. And Part Three contrasts NaProTechnology protocols for infertility with in vitro fertilization and concludes that NaPro provides infertile couples not only a responsible means of conceiving a baby that remedies the injustice of in vitro fertilization but also a medical embodiment of the Church’s teaching on the right to family planning.
In 2014, the American Academy of Pediatrics published its policy statement on contraception for adolescents, which provides, in effect, a mandate to temporarily sterilize all adolescents with long-acting reversible contraceptives for five to ten years. The author reviews the AAP guidelines and their effects on Catholic adolescents, their families, and adolescent health care providers. He then discusses medicolegal issues raised by the policy, outlines Catholic strategies for combating it, and proposes a diocese-based physician-led program for teaching and counseling elementary and high school students.
The development of hormonal contraception introduced a new era in medical practice, marked by the suppression of female fertility by interventions in the hormonal system. The interventions are very grave, as sex hormones are of existential importance both to preserve human life and to preserve the human species. This article conducts an ethical evaluation of the use of hormonal contraception natural law theory and virtue ethics. Based on philosophical reflection, the author examines what effects hormonal contraception has on primary goods and whether its use is congruent with the cardinal virtues. National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly 14.3 (Autumn 2014): 491–524.
Body LiteracyGynecologic Health MonitoringCancer Risk and Benefit AssessmentContraception Alternatives for Cancer Prevention
Consecrated women religious have been shown to be at increased risk for uterine and ovarian cancers. The authors critique a proposal by Kara Britt and Roger Short advocating the distribution of a combined oral contraceptive to women religious as a way of reducing this risk. The authors argue that the the data it references attenuate its conclusion, the execution protocol is incomplete, and the proposal fails to address the serious health risks of combined oral contraceptives. As a counterproposal, the authors recommend that women religious be taught to monitor their gynecologic health by charting their menstrual and ovulatory cycles. National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly 12.2 (Summer 2012): 235–239.