Upload
dan-boyce
View
215
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
8/9/2019 Fertility, Ethical and Theological Reflections
1/20
INTRODUCTION
26 Then God said, "Let us make humankind in our image,according to our likeness...
27
So God created humankind in his image,in the image of God he created them;male and female he created them.
28 God blessed them and God said to them, "Be fruitful andmultiply, and fill the earth... (Genesis 1:26-28a, NRSV).
Jerry and Sally came to the platform and before the church I led them
through a dedication of their new born child to the Lord. This was their third child
and it was a day for them to celebrate with their family and friends this precious
new life. As I led them through the presentation of their child, I was keenly aware
of another couple, Barbara and John, who two days earlier buried their
prematurely born twins. Before going to the reception at Jerry and Sallys, I sat
and wept with Barbara and John. Barbaras and Johns pain was all the more
deeply felt because they, unlike Jerry and Sally, had been unable to conceive
without medical intervention, the twins that they finally did conceive were the
result of extensive fertility treatments.
This story makes the discussion of fertility and infertility more than an
academic exercise. Instead, this discussion is important at this time because of
rapid developments in the field of reproductive medicine and treatments. Andrew
Kimbrell, in an article highly critical of the current practice of the commodification
of human parts, seeks to bring into perspective the usual statistics that
surround the reporting of infertility. According to Kimbrell, instead of the
popularly reported 10 million couples, infertility affects 2.3 million couples in the
US. Therefore, slightly less than one in 12 couples are infertile instead of the
8/9/2019 Fertility, Ethical and Theological Reflections
2/20
commonly reported one in six (Kimbrell, The Body Enclosed, 127). For a
pastor, this means that if a churchs active membership is representative of the
general population and it includes 12 couples in the child bearing years then
chances are, one of these couples will face issues that the other 11 couples will
not. As their pastor, I must be able to walk with them and so this issue becomes
one that I cannot ignore since it will be impossible for those who are infertile to
ignore it when their friends begin to have children.
My purpose in this paper is to explore the issues surrounding the wonder
of procreation and the beginning of life, fertility/contraception,
conception/infertility and options that currant beginning of life technologies
provide. I will seek to examine these issues in light of what seem to me to be the
theological, philosophical, and ethical issues that arise as a result of modern
medical technology. This discussion will then become the basis for some
reflections on a pastoral response to couples who are living through the child
bearing years. Couples facing these issues will not come to their pastor for an
answer concerning the physiology of their condition. There are other and more
appropriate sources for that information. Instead, they will come to their pastor
for help in answering the question of why God has allowed and/or caused this to
happen to us.
And because the LORD had closed [Hannas] womb... she wept andwould not eat. Elkanah... would say to her, "Hannah, why are you weeping? Whydon't you eat? Why are you downhearted? Don't I mean more to you than tensons?"
Once... in Shiloh... In bitterness of soul Hannah wept much and prayed tothe LORD.... [she] was praying in her heart, and her lips were moving but hervoice was not heard. Eli thought she was drunk and said to her, "...Get rid of yourwine."
8/9/2019 Fertility, Ethical and Theological Reflections
3/20
"Not so, my lord," Hannah replied, "I am a woman who is deeply troubled.I have not been drinking wine or beer; I was pouring out my soul to the LORD.Do not take your servant for a wicked woman; I have been praying here out ofmy great anguish and grief." (1 Samuel 1:6-16 NIV)
When this time comes in our pastoral ministry, will we be able respond
with Eli, Go in peace, and may the God of Israel grant you what you have asked
of him."
SOMETHEOLOGICAL REFLECTIONSON THEHUMANDESIREFORPROCREATION
There are a number of passages and Scriptural narratives that are helpful
in this discussion. Two in particular that seem especially helpful in this
discussion as a starting point for a theological basis of a discussion on infertility
and a pastoral response are Genesis 1:28 and Ephesians 3:14,15.
GENESIS 1:28
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. In creating the
sphere of the heavens and the earth, God created a space for life. Once
created, God proceeded to fill that space with life. Intrinsic to that life, whether
plant or animal, is the ability to reproduce itself within the space which God
created to sustain it. The Genesis account of creation builds to the final creative
act in which God created humanity in his own image thus making humans distinct
from the rest of creation though sharing all that creation or creatureliness entails.
Therefore, it cannot be said that the human capability to reproduce or
procreate is distinctive since reproduction is intrinsic to all life on earth. The
distinction made between humanity and the rest of creation is rather found in two
things; our participation in the image of God and the second part of the
imperative of Genesis 1:28 ...subdue [the earth]; and rule over the fish of the sea
8/9/2019 Fertility, Ethical and Theological Reflections
4/20
and over the birds of the sky, and over every living thing that moves on the
earth. Part of humanity's participation in the image of God has to do with our
ability to subdue and rule. However, the subjugation of nature and ruler-ship
over other animals is tied to the imperative to be fruitful, to multiply and to fill the
earth.
This discussion from the Creation Poem has implications for the present
discussion. First, there is an imperative for humans to actively procreate.
Someone once said regarding contraception and the 1960s population explosion
rhetoric and with reference to Genesis 1:28, This is the only commandment we
havent broken and now we are trying to break it. The wisdom or absurdity of
such a statement is not important here, what is important is the idea that giving
birth to children is at least a deep seated concern in human culture which uses
something as powerful as fundamental religious beliefs to insure that it takes
place or it is truly a fundamental concern of the Creator for us and the creation.
In either case, we find a Scriptural basis for the concerns that are raised by our
growing ability to control and manipulate the birth process.
A second implication has to do with the control and manipulation just
mentioned. Does our growing knowledge and the consequent development of
technologies for the control and manipulation of conception fall within the second
part of the Genesis imperative to subdue and rule? This question is intriguing for
two reasons. First, the language of Genesis 1:28 implies that creation will not
do mans (sic) bidding gladly or easily and that man (sic) must now bring creation
into submission by main strength. It [nature] is not to rule man (sic) (Harris, et al,
8/9/2019 Fertility, Ethical and Theological Reflections
5/20
Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, 430). Since we and those things
which adversely affect us physically are part of the realm of nature then is it fitting
and proper for us to subdue those things which inhibit our ability to fulfill the
imperative to conceive and give birth.
The Genesis passage, however, brings into view another aspect of
humanity, we are not animals only. Humans are created in the image of God.
This alone must bring into question how far we can go and under what conditions
we are to go about subjugating nature including subjugated human life. Even in
a secular setting there is a basic understanding of human rights that modifies
how we go about the business of handling technologies that directly affect human
life at such a basic level as conception. For these two reasons then it is critical
that we examine closely our progress in this area. I would not want to violate the
imperative to subjugate and rule in regards to human reproduction and the
treatment of infertility, but I want to make sure that this is carried out within a
context and framework that respects human dignity and the idea of our being
created in the image of God.
EPHESIANS 3:14,15
Before turning to a discussion of the beginning of life, it will be helpful to
discuss briefly the idea of parenthood.
For this reason I kneel before the Father (patera ), from whom everyfamily (patria) in heaven and on earth derives its name. (Ephesians3:14,15,)
Although closely related to God as creator, the implication here is that the
relationship between the creator and that which is created is more than simply
8/9/2019 Fertility, Ethical and Theological Reflections
6/20
mechanical. The significance is that as with Gods relationship to his creatures
as Father, so is the relationship between parents and their children. This idea
further complicates and accentuates the heart cry of those who are unable to
conceive a child. Procreation is not making babies. Humans do not bread. We
create our future and extend our past. We have the capacity to transcend our
own generation in that we can and do look to our parentage and consider lineage
and posterity as important to who we are.
The ideal of family relations, though greatly impaired and threatened by
the immigrant and mobile culture characteristic of the U.S., still carries a great
amount of weight as witnessed by The romanticization of the family in the media
especially during the Christmas season. Here again, we witness more than a
mere biological attempt at species preservation. The Creator himself confronts
the breakdown of family relationships through the prophet Malachi,
...the LORD is acting as the witness between you and the wife of your youth,because you have broken faith with her, though she is your partner, the wife ofyour marriage covenant.
Has not the LORD made them one? In flesh and spirit they are his. Andwhy one? Because he was seeking godly offspring. So guard yourself in yourspirit, and do not break faith with the wife of your youth. (Malachi 2:14-15 NIV)
Thus it becomes clear that the desire for procreation and parenthood is a
real one and that such a desire is not just the result of societal, biological, or
family pressures, all of which are present and real, but is in some way intrinsic to
our very being as creatures created in the image of God. It also seems that one
can make a case for the pursuit of a cure for the problem of infertility in light of
at least the Genesis passage and perhaps the Ephesians passage. However,
before turning to a discussion of the technology that has developed for this
8/9/2019 Fertility, Ethical and Theological Reflections
7/20
purpose, in my mind, one more question must be addressed- When does human
life begin?
THEBEGINNINGOF LIFE
In our post-Enlightenment, Post-Christian, scientific secular age we cannot
assume that society at large any longer holds to or even understands the
theological/Christian concerns in this issue. Neither can it be assumed that those
who come to us are less influenced by the now dominate secular philosophies of
a modern or "post-modern" society. Nevertheless, in order for us to provide
sound pastoral care to those who come to us in the setting of pastoral care, it is
necessary for us to give serious thought to the debate of when human life
beginnings. Indeed, such a discussion will impact our counsel and ability to
provide a loving presence to the person or persons who approach us not only
for help in coping with infertility, but also for those who, being fertile, are
considering various ways of controlling or preventing conception (contraception).
As a beginning point, the Evangelical Covenant Church has no official
statement that either defines or that provides guidelines to help in this area. At
best, we can look to the resolution on abortion that was adopted in its current
form by the 1994 Annual Meeting for some insight on how we can proceed. In its
discussion on abortion, the Annual Meeting uses ambigous language in
reference to the unborn. However, even though no attempt at defining when
personhood begins is made in any of the resolutions presented and adopted
between 1984 and 1987, and again in 1994, there is a recognition of the unborn
as human life. The 1994 revision leaves intact the original language of the 1987
8/9/2019 Fertility, Ethical and Theological Reflections
8/20
resolution which hints at the idea that human life begins at conception: We are
responsible to God, to ourselves, to each other, and to the new lives we are
capable ofbringing into existence. We recognize that every sexual act could
result in conception... (italics mine, 1994 Covenant Yearbook, 320).1
It is not possible to make a definitive statement from this language.
However, it affirms the Covenants basic recognition of and commitment to the
sanctity of human life in its early formative and developmental stages. While a
hard line cannot be drawn on when human life begins, there are some
philosophical considerations that can help in coming to a conclusion. From the
outset, it is commonly recognized that our understanding of the process of
conception, development and formation of the pre-born passes through a number
of complex and delicate stages. The question being debated is when exactly in
this process does the pre-born become human.
The options are: 1) at birth; 2) at that point in fetal development when the
nervous system is fully viable; 3) at that point in embryonic development when
the appearance of the primitive streak and implantation precludes twinning; or 4)
at conception. The language of the abortion resolution by the Annual Meeting
indicates that the first option is unacceptable for most if not all Covenanters and
would probably be unacceptable to most Covenant pastors.
In deciding when the pre-born is to be considered human is often tied up
philosophically in the idea of personhood. If one understands personhood as
1It must be recognized that such a resolution is not binding in any sense on the local churchesnor on individual members of the Covenant. However, since this resolution was adopted by the
Annual Meeting it is as close as one will get to an official position on such an issue as what weare discussing here.
8/9/2019 Fertility, Ethical and Theological Reflections
9/20
self-consciousness then the earliest possible moment that the fetus could be
identified as human is only at the second option. This is so because, whether or
not the pre-born is actually self-conscious at that point it is only when the neural
system is fully formed that the capacity for self-awareness is possible(Cahill,
The Embryo and the Fetus, 136-137; Crosby, The Personhood of the Human
Embryo, 399-400). The problem with this view is that it is not at all certain that
self-consciousness is an adequate way to define personhood. Is someone who
is in a dreamless sleep, dreamless coma, or who because of pathology is
incapable of self actualization not therefore a person? When one ceases to be
self-conscious does that ones personhood cease to exist (Crosby, The
Personhood of the Human Embryo, 402-404)?
Here again, it seems that the language of the abortion resolution indicates
that there would be discomfort with the second option since conception and
human life are used in such close proximity as being definitive of what makes
abortion offensive. Those who argue for the third option, do so out of an attempt
to take into account the current understanding of embryonic development that
has become available only in our time. The question of being and personhood is
tied to the stability of the embryo at this particular stage of development. The
complex interaction between sperm and egg (syngamy) resulting in the formation
of the zygote, the passage of the zygote through the fallopian tube and its
development (morula stage) into the blastocyst which must then successfully
implant in the uterine wall where it can continue to develop into the embryo
proper is too delicate and unstable a period of development for this entity to be
8/9/2019 Fertility, Ethical and Theological Reflections
10/20
recognized as possessing humanness or personhood (Shannon and Wolter,
Bioethics, 39-41).
It must be pointed out that there is approximately a 60% chance that the
process will result in failure (Cahill, The Embryo and the Fetus, 127). In
addition to this rate of failure there is a certain instability in the zygote during
these early stages in that twinning and recombination can take place. Also,
throughout this first 14-21 day period the zygote is dependent on several factors:
the progressive actualization of its own genetically coded information, the
actualization of pieces of information that originated
e novo during the embryonic
process, and exogenous information independent of the control of the zygote
(Shannon and Wolter, Bioethics, 41). However, can it not be said that even the
adult human is dependent on a number of factors both de novo (hormonal
activity, white blood cell production) and exogenous (cultural and moral norms,
food production) in order to continue the process of self-actualization, albeit at a
higher order, and it must be noted, the survival rate of adults to full potential, as
far as we know, is zero.
That humanness exists at conception cannot be proven or empirically
demonstrated. But, is humanness ever empirically demonstrable? If we
understand the person to exist holistically, that is being and physical embodiment
are one and the same, then whether or not the environment or process of
development are more or less stable has little to do with the humanness or
personhood of a human being at any given point of development he or she is in.
John F. Crosby summarizes his sustained argument for life beginning at
8/9/2019 Fertility, Ethical and Theological Reflections
11/20
conception with this statement, I am at present embodied in my body in such a
way that I have to assume that I was present in it from its very beginning, even
before I awoke to consciousness; for I know that there is more to myself as a
person than my consciousness (The Personhood of the human Embryo, 415).
This is a brief overview of the field of discussion of when life begins. It is a
highly philosophical discussion of which the forgoing is admittedly an
oversimplification. In a sense human life in its embryonic stages is teleological
and it is certainly ambiguous. Nevertheless, this helps us as we turn to consider
infertility treatment in that we must recognize that the treatment of infertility is not
about curing a pathology that affects the health of or the physical wellbeing of an
adult, female or male. What is being treated is the inability to procreate and
while there is a physiological component, the issues that must be prayerfully
worked through are as much, if not more so, emotional, psychological, and
spiritual. A pastoral response will seek to address each of these areas.
TREATING INFERTILITY:OPTIONSFORTHECHILDLESSCOUPLE
Is an infertile couple without recourse? The answer to this question is
obviously No. There are a number of ways in which a couple can become
parents and fulfill their parental desires. A couple may not look to the pastor as a
resource for what these options are, but it is needful for the pastor to be aware of
what the options are if he or she is to be prepared to be a pastor to these
families. I will briefly present several of the most common options that are
currently available with some reflections on ethical and moral considerations.
8/9/2019 Fertility, Ethical and Theological Reflections
12/20
This is not an exhaustive listing but will reflect the literature available to me at the
time of writing.
ADOPTION: Adoption is a realistic option for the childless family. But is it the most
desirable. This depends on several factors, some of which are: (1) what is it that
the couple desires? If their desire is to rear children then this can be argued to
be the best option since it does not require subjugation of the couple to medical
treatment; (2) are there sufficient parentless children for those couples who wish
to be parents by adoption; (3) is the couple willing to risk the unknowable's of the
history of an adoptable child. This option is ethical from at least two points of
view. In a consequential framework it can be said that the outcome of adoption
is that both the couple and the parentless child are benefitted and the problem of
childlessness and parentlessness are remedied. In addition, adoption provides a
legal heir that for all intents and purposes is equal to a natural child and thus
continues the history of the family. Further, society is benefitted since the
community will no longer be burdened with the care of the child. Deontologically,
the moral imperative of the love commandment is fulfilled by the couple and
orphans are cared for.
FOSTER PARENTING: This option is in many ways like that above and yet is
distinctively different. It will perhaps be a better option for a couple with a very
strong parental desire and a strong sense of calling. The built in
"temporariness" of the foster care system creates unique issues for children and
will put higher demands on the emotional and spiritual resources of the foster
8/9/2019 Fertility, Ethical and Theological Reflections
13/20
parents, but it can also carry a great sense of fulfillment in making a significant
difference for children in the foster care system.
It seems to me that the same ethical evaluation applies to this option as to
adoption. However, because of the stresses foster care places on these children
and the foster parents, I would not recommend this option to a childless couple
until or unless they have fully worked through the emotional and spiritual issues
of their infertility. In addition to the ethical frameworks mentioned for adoption,
perhaps an ethic of rights could also apply here. Do these children have a right
to a safe, secure and loving home? If so, this must be weighed against the
willingness of the perspective parents to give up certain rights to freedom of
movement and having their home come under the scrutiny of the State.
ARTIFICIAL INSEMINATION: This is a medical procedure that seeks to overcome
male infertility. The procedure takes semen and by means of syringe, deposits it
in or near the wifes cervix. There are generally two types of artificial
insemination, by husband (A.I.H.) or by donor (A.I.D.). I agree with E.D.
Schneider that A.I.H. presents few difficulties either socially or ethically
(Schneider, 10-11). The benefits are possible pregnancy with a minimum of
intervention or invasiveness medically. If it can be said that the wife has a right
to become pregnant with her and her husband's child, then this right is fulfilled
without violating the right of the husband to be the biological father of his wifes
child. Deontologically, we could say that the Genesis imperative is fulfilled.
However, one might raise the question of natural order in that the pregnancy did
8/9/2019 Fertility, Ethical and Theological Reflections
14/20
not occur through "natural" sexual intercourse. However, I believe I could
counsel a couple to consider this option.
On the other hand, my initial reaction to A.I.D. is negative. Perhaps this
reaction falls under an ethic of intuition. However, this raises a legitimate
concern for me as a person who, if I am truly maturing as such, can expect to put
some trust in intuition (Heb. 5:14). Schnieder raises several questions
surrounding this form of infertility treatment. These range from legal issues to
social and psychological considerations to concerns about eugenics and ethical
questions. I would advise extreme caution for a couple considering this option
(for a negative conclusion see Schneider, 11-29; for a positive conclusion see
Bayles, 11-18).
IN VITRO FERTILIZATION:2 Kimbrell points out that Although infertility did not
increase during the 1980s, infertility treatment did. And although infertility is just
as often a male as a female problem, it is women who are targeted by what are
called the new reproductive technologies (Kimbrell, The Body Enclosed,137,
sidebar). In vitro fertilization (IVF ) is developing into a common practice for
treatment of female infertility which is the result of diseased or blocked fallopian
tubes or when the reason for infertility is unknown or undetectable. It is also
used in cases where the husbands sperm are abnormal and fail to respond to
treatment (Paul Jersild, Questions About The Beginning of Life, 34). Jersild does
not see the IVF procedure as particularly complicated, nor as being of any great
2IVF treatment has led to the development of a number of artificial and invasive proceduresincluding GIFT (gamete intrafallopian transfer, ZIFT (zygote intrafallopian transfer), TET (tubalembryo transfer) PZD (partial zona dissection) and MESA (microsurgical epidiymal spermaspiration) (Kimbrell, 137, sidebar).
8/9/2019 Fertility, Ethical and Theological Reflections
15/20
risk to the woman (35). However, Kimbrell describes IVF as having a dismal
failure rate (see attached chart) and as highly invasive procedures with multiple
doses of powerful hormones, numerous artificial inseminations, embryo
implantations, and fallopian transfers (The Body Enclosed, 137, sidebar).
As with AID, a distinction can be made in this procedure between IVF that
is performed using the sperm and eggs of the husband and wife and the resulting
child (if successful) is genetically related to both parents. Or either the sperm or
the eggs or both sperm and eggs are from donors and thus the child resulting
from this procedure will be genetically related to only one or perhaps neither
parent. This, then, begs the question of what is a parent. However, upon
reflection is the end result of a successful AID procedure substantively different
than an adoption - only in the AID case the child is adopted before conception
especially if the eggs and sperm are from donors.
One sustentative concern that is raised in IVF treatment is the need for
multiple fertilized eggs in order to increase the effectiveness of the procedure to
justify its use. What is to be done with the extra eggs that are now fertilized
eggs. This is an especially critical question in light of our discussion of the
beginning of human life.
A consequential question is raised when the natural process of conception
is bypassed. This is a question relating to eugenics. Are genes being passed on
into the gene pool that would not normally be, thus creating unforeseen problems
for future generations? I only raise this question here and would not bring it up
with a couple who sought me out for pastoral counsel. Another consequential
8/9/2019 Fertility, Ethical and Theological Reflections
16/20
concern is for those embryos that are either destroyed because they were not
used or are destroyed in uterine in order to improve the chances of survival for
the stronger embryos. I again am initially intuitively uncomfortable with this
choice. But I would not make this the sole reason for questioning its ethicalness.
HORMONAL TREATMENTS: In this case the woman receives a regimen of hormonal
injections in an attempt to stimulate the maturation of eggs. This was the
procedure used by Barbara and John. There can be sever side affects related to
this treatment including extreme swelling of the ovaries and mood swings that
can add stress to the marriage. This treatment also increases the possibility of
multiple births which has further implications for the health and welfare of the
mother and children.
The concern that I would raise with this is that the couple closely monitor
their relationship and the effects emotionally and personality wise that this
treatment causes. As long as these do not become greater than the possible
good of having a child then I believe this is an acceptable option.
SURROGATE MOTHER: IVF does not require that the wife carry or give birth to the
child so conceived. If the wife is unable to carry the child because of uterine or
other problems it is possible to place the fertilized egg in the uterus of another
woman who has contracted with the couple to carry the fetus to birth and then to
relinquish the child to the genetic parents. This is one type of surrogate
motherhood. Other types include a woman who agrees to be impregnated by
artificial insemination with the husbands sperm and her egg or to carry a
8/9/2019 Fertility, Ethical and Theological Reflections
17/20
combination of donor sperm or donor eggs and the eggs or sperm from one of
the contracting couple.
Surrogate motherhood was practiced historically as demonstrated by
Abraham and Sarah with Hagar. This is one of several examples of surrogacy in
the Bible, but in each case the results bring into question the advantages.
Consider the rivalry to this day between the descendants of Isaac and Ishmael.
Or consider the rivalry between Jacobs sons, many of whom were born through
surrogacy. Here again, intuition tells me to avoid this option. However, there are
other ethical considerations that must be considered including justice and
perhaps the rights of the surrogate mother toward the child, especially if her egg
is used (Shanley, 624-25).
ABIOETHICAL CONSIDERATION:
Autonomy, nonmaleficence, beneficence, and justice are four concepts
that are used in bioethical discussions. I will here attempt to examine the
infertility treatments mentioned above in the light of these four concepts keeping
in mind that in some ways this may not be an appropriate endeavor. My reason
for questioning the applicability of these for traditional categories is because
infertility is not a life threatening disease. Nor is It a pathology that requires
treatment in order to alleviate physical pain. Infertility can be lived with without
causing detriment or discomfort or disability to those who are infertile.
The principle of justice applies appropriately to the treatments that require
a high level of medical interventions (IVF, GIFT, ZIFT, Hormonal treatment).
Non-comparative justice calls into question the just distribution of resources. The
8/9/2019 Fertility, Ethical and Theological Reflections
18/20
cost of IVF is up to $10,000 per cycle (Science and Technology, 79). With a
success rate of between 10 - 14 percent (Kimbrell, The Body Enclosed,, 137,
sidebar) it seems hard to justify the treatment when resources for medical
treatment in other areas where quality of life can be affected are already being
stretched to the limit.
Comparative justice calls into question the fairness of a procedure that
excludes a group of people because they do not possess the resources to afford
treatment. Is their burden of infertility any less than that of those who possess
the resources? The same problem arises with surrogate mothering where it can
cost $30,000 to $45,000 per child with the surrogate mother receiving $10,000 at
the birth of a live child and as little as $1,000 if still born (Kimbrell, The Body
Enclosed,, 139).
REFLECTIONSONAPASTORALCARE
In the first section of this presentation, I sought to place the experience of
a couple experiencing infertility in the context of Gods creative activity and our
place in that creation. In that context it becomes apparent that the desire to have
children is more than a cultural or biological matter. Therefore, it is necessary for
me as a pastor to affirm the validity of both the feelings that this couple is
experiencing and to help guide/lead them into a healing exploration and
discovery of who they are and into an experience of redemption, restoration and
healing. By this I do not mean necessarily physical healing although prayer in
this vein would be appropriate and has Biblical precedence. How would this
pastoral care look? What can I do?
8/9/2019 Fertility, Ethical and Theological Reflections
19/20
First, it seems that infertility is a type of death. As such it is a loss that
must be processed, there needs to be a time of grieving. Helping the couple to
recognize this and to give themselves permission to grieve can help them to
begin the process of healing.
As the couple comes to terms with their infertility, I would want to wait on
them to initiate conversation about possible options. However, I would want to
be careful to be intentional about keeping the lines of communication open.
There will be questions that will arise about their self-worth, their adequacy as
persons, their place in the larger community. It will be necessary for the pastor to
keep the couple from being isolated and alone though the feeling of isolation is
real in grief (Wolterstorff, quoted in Hauerwas, facing page vii).
One way to help deal with these questions and the sense of isolation is to
provide a group setting where couples of infertility can support each other. In this
setting the couple becomes couples and the common resource and common
experience can become a place where Gods grace can become manifest and
real.
Finally, prayer. Each of us must face loss with its accompanying sense of
abandonment. The Scriptures are filled with stories of loss, beginning with the
first couple. Contained within the Scriptures are words given by the Spirit of That
give words for our own often unutterable pain. I believe a basic pastoral
response would be to lead this couple to the laments of the Old Testament where
they could find in Gods own words of lament (all Scripture is the breath of God) a
way to pour out their heart until the song of lament becomes the prayer for
8/9/2019 Fertility, Ethical and Theological Reflections
20/20
restoration as they begin to experience Gods healing, redeeming, restorative,
power.
Sing, O barren, thou thatdidst not bear; break forth into singing, and cry
aloud, thou thatdidst not travail with child: for more are the children of thedesolate than the children of the married wife, saith the LORD. Enlargethe place of thy tent, and let them stretch forth the curtains of thinehabitations: spare not, lengthen thy cords, and strengthen thy stakes; Forthou shalt break forth on the right hand and on the left... (Isaiah 54:1-3a,NIV)
The infertile couple does not need from me answersper se to their
situation. They need in me a living, loving presence who will walk with them
through this particular and poignant valley of the shadow of death.