Schotsmans P T
Centre of Biomedical Ethics and Law, Department of Public Health, School of Medicine, Leuven, Belgium.
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 1998 Dec;81(2):235-41. doi: 10.1016/s0301-2115(98)00196-1.
In line with Professor Brosens' work at the K.U. Leuven, the ethical integration of in vitro fertilisation (IVF) was made possible in the context of personalism, what we will present here in its anthropological and theological foundations. This presentation is necessary to make clear that personalism is always in the making of the clarification of its foundations. The three basic anthropological options are then applied to the ethical integration of IVF. They will lead to three concrete criteria for clinical practice: stable heterosexual infertile couple as indication; the respect for the human embryo and the qualitative social organization of infertility treatment. This position of Catholic personalists is in contradiction with the teaching of the Church, declaring that the IVF practice is in itself illicit. The third and fourth parts of this article are devoted to this statement. First, by debating the official magisterial position, and second, by referring to probably one of the most crucial issues for the ethical debate on IVF in the Church: the moral status of the embryo.
与布罗森斯教授在鲁汶大学的工作一致，体外受精（IVF）的伦理整合在个人主义的背景下成为可能，我们将在此阐述其人类学和神学基础。进行这一阐述很有必要，以明确个人主义总是处于对其基础进行阐明的过程中。然后，这三种基本的人类学观点被应用于体外受精的伦理整合。它们将产生临床实践的三个具体标准：稳定的异性不育夫妇作为适应症；对人类胚胎的尊重以及不育治疗的定性社会组织。天主教个人主义者的这一立场与教会的教义相矛盾，教会宣称体外受精实践本身就是非法的。本文的第三和第四部分致力于阐述这一观点。首先，通过讨论官方教义权威的立场，其次，通过提及教会中体外受精伦理辩论可能最为关键的问题之一：胚胎的道德地位。
