SPONSORED BY:

Life on Ice

In 1995, a California doctor took responsibility for thousands of unwanted embryos. He's still figuring out what to do with them.

Firefly Productions-Corbis
A technician works with frozen embryos
 

Email To A Friend

Please fill in the following information and we'll email this link.

Separate multiple addresses with commas

SPONSORED BY
 

Police cruisers typically escort heads of state, but on a November morning in 1995, the VIP heading down California's Highway 405 was an ordinary-looking moving truck. It was, however, carrying some particularly fragile cargo: several metal tanks, each just larger than a beer keg, containing a total of roughly 2,000 frozen human embryos. They were being transported from a scandal-plagued IVF clinic in Laguna Hills, Calif., to their new adoptive home in Newport Beach. Today, many still remain there, unclaimed. The embryos' unusual journey illustrates just how complicated the business of assisted reproduction can get.

The story starts at Saddleback Memorial Hospital in Laguna Hills. The fertility clinic there had been shuttered earlier in 1995, when an investigation found that its doctors had mixed up embryos and impregnated women with eggs that weren't theirs. As many as 300 patients were thought to have been involved, and at least three cases had surfaced in which women had unwittingly given birth to children not theirs. The clinic's top doctors, Ricardo Asch and Jose Balmaceda, had fled the county. Thousands of unused or extra embryos were left behind, and because the clinic was run by the University of California, Irvine, they were in the custody of the state.

Officials asked several nearby fertility clinics to take the orphan embryos, but initially no one was willing; most clinic doctors preferred to stay clear of the scandal's taint. Dr. Robert Anderson felt differently. "To me, it seemed unfair to the couples," he says. Anderson agreed to house the frozen embryos at the clinic he'd opened three years earlier in Newport Beach, the Southern California Center for Reproductive Medicine. "I thought it was the right thing to do," he says with more than a hint of resignation. "I actually thought I was doing a good thing."

Anderson signed a contract laying out how he would take care of the embryos and releasing him from any liability related to their origins. He didn't ask for payment, and he never suspected he'd be taking care of some of the embryos nearly 15 years later.

His staff began the process of tracking down the patients connected to each set of embryos using records from the Saddleback clinic. When the patients could be found, they were asked to make a decision about what to do with their embryos, and until they decided, they were billed for storage, just as Anderson's own clients are. But because the University of California clinic was one of the first fertility centers in the world, many of its patients lived abroad, and tracking them down proved to be difficult. "We did what we could do," Anderson says. Today, about a thousand of the Saddleback embryos remain.

Even if the patients are available to make a choice about the embryos, the decision often isn't an easy one. Many couples opt to freeze extra embryos created for in vitro fertilization treatments; when they're finished with IVF, they must decide what to do with these little clusters of cells, which were a challenge to produce and expensive. There are an estimated half million unused embryos, some decades old, being stored around the nation in fertility centers like Anderson's. "There are huge differences in the thinking about what these embryos represent," Anderson says. "From 'they're leftover biological material' to 'they're little people'."

Between the remaining Saddleback embryos and the ones from his own patients, Anderson estimates that he is responsible for about 6,700 embryos. These tiny bits of humanity are housed in 19 Thermos-like tanks lining the walls and peeking out from under counters at his lab. Each one is full of liquid nitrogen, which keeps its temperature under 300 degrees below zero, and is equipped with an alarm that's set to go off if the nitrogen evaporates more quickly than it should. An embryologist checks on the tanks each week and tops them off.

Every year, Anderson's team bills the couples whom the embryos belong to—in most cases, the genetic parents; in others, the men and women who acquired the sperm or eggs to make them. Along with a notice requesting $300 for annual storage costs, the "owners" receive a reminder that there are options for embryos like theirs. They can be donated to research or given to another couple that's trying to conceive. Or they can be discarded as medical waste.

Label

Newsweek Top Stories
Visions of a Decade
Visions of a Decade

From 2000-2009, one photo per month.

The Failure of Copenhagen
The Failure of Copenhagen

Why there could be a silver lining in a failed climate treaty.

Sex Scandals of the 2000s
Sex Scandals of the 2000s

From John Edwards to Mark Sanford, the decade's memorable affairs.

118 Days in Hell
118 Days in Hell

A NEWSWEEK journalist recounts his captivity in Iran.

Discuss

Sponsored by

Member Comments

  • Posted By: carsda1 @ 07/12/2009 3:24:38 AM

    Last part:
    I do agree with your last point that we should ALL (pro-life AND pro-choice)work harder to reduce unwanted pregnancies, and to make sure children whose birth families cannot care for them get real, loving families. Education is one thing we can do, beginning with our own kids. I think that's the point many of us on both sides miss - that we can't just sit around and make somebody ELSE do something about it - we have to be working for it ourselves. We have six children, and we talk to them about the responsibilities of sex. We are involved in their lives and their friends hang out at our house (what's a few more sandwiches?). We SHOULD be taking in pregnant mothers in crisis who have no homes and caring for them. We should be listening to them, not just talking at them. Caring for them rather than condemning them. You are right. We should be doing those things. I should be doing more of those things. And you know, if we were doing those things, caring for other people on a personal level, the government could legalize whatever it wanted and abortion could still be a rare choice.
    Thanks for the debate. Iron sharpens iron, they say.

  • Posted By: carsda1 @ 07/12/2009 3:24:03 AM

    Part III
    Denominationalism is something else too. What issues do we disagree about that are the same in every Bible? Baptism? That's a big one. Some claim infant baptism, some claim believers' baptism. Guess what? The plain answer is not in every Bible on earth. Predestination? Yes - there are texts that can support each side. Should we worship on Saturday or Sunday? For the most part, these disagreements are over nonessentials (doctrines that are not essential to a person's salvation). True, some churches hold to extra-biblical or nonbiblical doctrines, but the fault is not in Christ or in Christianity, but in those views. Not all CHURCHES that claim to be Christian really are. Some are cults. Some are social clubs. Some are service clubs, like a Rotary meeting with prayers. And some do continue to hold followers in bondage, thinking that they have to do this and that and this, carefully, over and over again and don't miss anything...if they're going to be let into heaven. That is sad, but it is a pox on THEM, and not on Christianity or on Christ. And even in the churches that do hold to essential biblical doctrines, there are unbelievers in the pews. Some are dragged by their spouses/parents/children. Some are searching. Some think they're Christians but have missed the point.
    I know you don't want to hear any more, so I'll stop there.

    But of this man (I don't even remember his name) who killed Dr. Tiller, as you said, "in his mind he was justified," that's not Christianity, or even religion. That's the spirituality you were talking about "diggin into yourself for answers." That's not where Christians are supposed to go for answers. If he believed in the Christ he claims he would have listened to Him when He said, "Do not repay anyone evil for evil." To be so mad over someone else's sin that we go and commit the same sin in the name of Christ is preposterous.

  • Posted By: carsda1 @ 07/12/2009 3:23:38 AM

    part II Religion is man's attempt to work our way into _____________. Call it heaven or nirvanah or whatever you want. Yes, to a certain extent, throughout history organized religion has tried to tell people the right thing to do to get free, as you said. But free of what? Free of death, free of suffering, free of this disposable earthsuit. Christianity is not a religion in that sense, because the work has been done by Christ on the cross - that's why it's FREE. You are absolutely right that a building with a cross can't set you free...and sitting in one doesn't make you a Christian either. Only Christ can set us free, which is why Christianity is an individual relationship and not an "organized religion." Just like you would say that abortion's not a governmental thing - it should be each person's decision for themselves. If some women are coerced into abortion by their families, that doesn't mean that all pro-choicers are coercive. Christianity is an individual decision, and how we live it out reflects on US, not everyone who claims the name of Christ.

    Hmmm. You are making blanket statements that sound like you haven't really read it and had questions for yourself, you've just heard the old arguments and nobody's answered you. Murder for God is all over the Bible? Where in the New Testament do you find that? Or since you specified the Old Testament, Where in the Prophets? Job? Esther? Nehemiah? God does not ordain murder anywhere in the Bible, although He did send the Israelites to war in Exodus and Joshua and I and II Kings. War is not murder (I know that statement is not politically correct either). King David was "a man after God's own heart" but he experienced severe consequences for committing murder. God didn't call his murder of Uriah righteous at all. Let alone beating children. If you mean that the Bible advocates discipline (as in "spare the rod, spoil the child") yes, the Bible does say we should discipline our children. Discipline and beating are not the same thing. Slavery was a part of the culture (it's what they did with prisoners of war when there was no home country to repatriate them to [or their home country wouldn't redeem them], and how they handled debts too large to be repaid) and God provides clear guidelines for the ownership and treatment of slaves. Even in the Old Testament (which is part of the Hebrew Torah, not "the original Bible" The Original Bible was put together in the 300s by Constantine), there was a feast (the Year of Jubilee) during which slaves were freed. Check it out - there are terms of service for slaves (not "forever until you die") and indentured servants and bondslaves. There are penalties for harsh treatment. God does not anywhere encourage His people to own slaves.

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse

My Take

Customize the NEWSWEEK homepage
to feature your favorite columnists.

Customize Now