reports:
Dr. Ernest Zeringue was looking for a niche in the cutthroat industry of fertility treatments.
He seized on price, a huge obstacle for many patients, and in late 2010 began advertising a deal at his Davis, Calif., clinic unheard of anywhere else: Pregnancy for $9,800 or your money back.
That’s about half the price for in vitro fertilization at many other clinics, which do not include money-back guarantees. Typically, insurance coverage is limited and patients pay again and again until they give birth — or give up.
Those patients use their own eggs and sperm — or carefully select donors when necessary — and the two are combined in a petri dish to create a batch of embryos. Usually one or two are then transferred to the womb. Any embryos left over are the property of the customers.
Zeringue sharply cuts costs by creating a single batch of embryos from one egg donor and one sperm donor, then divvying it up among several patients. The clinic, not the customer, controls the embryos, typically making babies for three or four patients while paying just once for the donors and the laboratory work.
People buying this option from Zeringue must accept concessions: They have no genetic connection to their children, and those children will probably have full biological siblings born to other parents.
November 27th, 2012 | 11:00 am
I seem to recall another article and debate fairly recently in which some supporters of embryonic stem-cell research (David Nickol, etc.) objected to the claim that it would naturally lead to sale of embryos. It certainly hasn’t taken long for the truth of the matter to reveal itself, as this article proves.
A link to that original discussion can be found below:
http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2012/10/10/vindication-for-opponents-of-embryo-destructive-research/comment-page-1/#comment-76749
November 27th, 2012 | 11:49 am
I seem to recall another article and debate fairly recently in which some supporters of embryonic stem-cell research (David Nickol, etc.) objected to the claim that it would naturally lead to sale of embryos.
Artaban,
You had said:
This story has nothing whatsoever to do with embryonic stem cell research. Nor is Dr. Zeringue selling “leftovers” to those who come to him seeking IVF. I can see why his method is setting off alarm bells, but it has nothing to do with the points you raised in the other thread.
November 27th, 2012 | 8:54 pm
Very sad what they are doing to human life and the commodification of human life. I would shut down this MD for tampering with human life. Human beings aren’t products or means to our ends. When that happens, we treat them like they are. I think it’s evil what he is doing. The babies aren’t evil, but he is, or at least what he is doing is wrong.
I don’t know how that can be okay with the Church because it certainly manipulates life ……..I realize it’s for a ‘good cause’ but if manipulating life with contraception is considered wrong – using a procedure to stop a life from forming……..wouldn’t in vitro essentially be doing the same thing even though for the object of promoting life? The Church can’t allow unnatural means in these cases.
I think this doctor wants to truly help with his process. But doctors being scientists like he is it’s more the scientist in him that’s at work
here……..he wants to see his idea be successful which it is. But I have problems with this as certainly any ‘thinking’ and ‘believing’ Catholic ought to be having as well.
November 29th, 2012 | 3:49 am
I notice that the LA Times failed (again) to warn its readers that IVF remains an experimental process and lacks any double-blind studies to demonstrate safety.
Compare and contrast media cheerleading for IVF practicioners with the ample airing of the opinions of the increasingly unscientific critics of well-tested farm GMOs. The Establishment Media’s message: human life can be treated carelessly but a soybean is precious!
December 2nd, 2012 | 11:36 am
Reta is right, we should shut this doctor down, it surely violates basic human rights.
Micha Elyl is right too, the media just sees a long easy storyline to right about, with lots of readers and advertisers, and they personally find it comforting. Their contradiction on soybeans genetic manipulation is very damning proof of bias. Or it’s just personal selfish concern, after all they have already been born but they still have to eat.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact