Gynecology and Reproductive Endocrinology

All submissions of the EM system will be redirected to Online Manuscript Submission System. Authors are requested to submit articles directly to Online Manuscript Submission System of respective journal.
Reach Us +1 (629)348-3199

Perspective - Gynecology and Reproductive Endocrinology (2024) Volume 8, Issue 6

Ethical and Legal Considerations in Assisted Reproductive Technologies: Navigating the Complexities of IVF and Genetic Testing

Liesl Comizzoli *

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Colombia

*Corresponding Author:
Liesl Comizzoli
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Colombia
E-mail: comizzoli@ucamc.cl.org

Received: 23-Oct-2024, Manuscript No. AAGGS-24-155106; Editor assigned: 24-Oct-2024, PreQC No. AAGGS-24-155106(PQ); Reviewed: 07-Nov-2024, QC No. AAGGS-24-155106Revised: 12-Nov-2024, Manuscript No. AAGGS-24-155106(R); Published: 19-Nov-2024, DOI: 10.35841/aajnnr-8.6.233

Citation: : Comizzoli L. Ethical and legal considerations in assisted reproductive technologies: Navigating the complexities of ivf and genetic testing. Gynecol Reprod Endocrinol.2024;8(6):233

Visit for more related articles at Gynecology and Reproductive Endocrinology

Introduction

Assisted reproductive technologies (ART), including in vitro fertilization (IVF) and genetic testing, raise significant ethical and legal considerations that require careful navigation [1]. These technologies, while transformative, challenge societal norms, medical ethics, and legal frameworks due to their profound implications for parenthood, genetics, and the rights of all parties involved [2].

One key ethical concern is the equitable access to ART [3]. The high costs associated with IVF and genetic testing often limit availability to affluent individuals or couples, raising questions about justice and the societal obligation to ensure reproductive technologies are accessible to all. Disparities in access highlight a critical need for policies promoting affordability and inclusion [4].

Genetic testing, such as preimplantation genetic testing (PGT) during IVF, adds another layer of complexity. While it offers the possibility of identifying genetic disorders before implantation, it raises concerns about eugenics and the potential for parents to select embryos based on non-medical traits, such as gender or physical characteristics [5]. This practice, often referred to as "designer babies," provokes debates about societal values and the ethical boundaries of human intervention in natural selection [6].

Legal considerations also come into play regarding embryo ownership and disposition [7]. In cases of divorce or separation, disputes over frozen embryos can lead to contentious legal battles, with courts tasked to decide whether the embryos are treated as property or potential life. Regulations vary widely across jurisdictions, further complicating these issues [8].

Anonymity and rights in donor gametes also remain contentious. Sperm and egg donation often involve questions about the rights of the donor, recipient, and resulting child [9]. In some countries, children conceived through ART have the legal right to know their biological origins, while in others, donor anonymity is preserved [10].

Conclusion

The rapid advancement of ART necessitates continuous dialogue among medical professionals, ethicists, lawmakers, and society. Robust legal frameworks and ethical guidelines are essential to balance innovation with respect for human rights, fairness, and societal values. As technologies evolve, these considerations will remain central to shaping their responsible and equitable use.

References

  1. Graham ME, Blee S, Pentz RD, et al. Informed consent in assisted reproductive technology: Implications for pediatric clinicians. Dev Med Child Neurol.

    2. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  2. Nadimpally S, Venkatachalam D. Ethical issues and challenges in research on gender, reproductive technologies and market. EPHPI. 2018:139-56.

    3. Google Scholar

  3. Singer WS. Exploring New Terrain: Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART), The Law and Ethics. Rutgers JL & Pub. 2010;8:918.

    4. Google Scholar

  4. Singh P, Singh S. Ethics and Privacy Considerations. SBMLMRH. 146-165.

    5. Google Scholar

  5. Weidenbaum E, Quinn GP, Rider GN. Clinical, Psychosocial, and Ethical Consideration in Assisted Reproductive Technology in Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender/and Queer+ Populations. OGC. 2024.

    6. Google Scholar

  6. Rubin LR, Phillips A. Infertility and assisted reproductive technologies: Matters of reproductive justice. RJGC. 2012:173-99.

    7. IGoogle Scholar

  7. Rozéeis V. Assisted Reproductive Technologies in the Global South and North.

    8. Google Scholar

  8. Manvelyan E, Sathe AR, Lindars DP, et al. Navigating the gestational surrogacy seas: the legalities and complexities of gestational carrier services. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2024:1-25.

    9. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  9. Sharma A, Pandey G, Venu V, et al. Challenges in Reproductive Health. InSystems Biology and Machine Learning Methods in Reproductive Health. 166-182.
  10. Gaddie G. The Personhood Movement's Effect on Assisted Reproductive Technology: Balancing Interests under a Presumption of Embryonic Personhood. Tex. L. Rev. 2017;96:1293.

    11. Google Scholar

Get the App