TOKYO, November 28, 2002 ( – A new fertility treatment which has been successful in clinical trials avoids the ethical qualms associated with in vitro fertilization and artificial insemination.  The technique involves a doctor removing a couple of ripe ova from a woman after intercourse and transplanting the ova at the back of the uterus directly in the path of the sperm.  The procedure was presented by Dr. Osamu Kato, director of Kato Ladies’ Clinic in Tokyo’s Shinjuku Ward, to an in vitro fertilization (IVF) society meeting in Kobe on Sunday. The ovum uterus transplant, as it is called, takes only about five minutes from start to finish and avoids the horrendously expensive cost of IVF.  Moreover, the method also avoids the necessity of drugs used in IVF which hyper stimulate the ovaries to produce large numbers of ripe ova.

In a recent interview, Dr. Robert Walley, who just returned from Rome where his Matercare International organized the second international workshop of Catholic obstetricians and gynecologists, explained that infertility treatments such as Dr. Kato’s would be morally acceptable.  Walley, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology, explained that the method is merely assisting nature to take its course since the sexual act remains the procreative act with the method.  See the report on the new method from the Asahi Shimbun November 13:


Commenting Guidelines
LifeSiteNews welcomes thoughtful, respectful comments that add useful information or insights. Demeaning, hostile or propagandistic comments, and streams not related to the storyline, will be removed.

LSN commenting is not for frequent personal blogging, on-going debates or theological or other disputes between commenters.

Multiple comments from one person under a story are discouraged (suggested maximum of three). Capitalized sentences or comments will be removed (Internet shouting).

LifeSiteNews gives priority to pro-life, pro-family commenters and reserves the right to edit or remove comments.

Comments under LifeSiteNews stories do not necessarily represent the views of LifeSiteNews.