Best interests of the future child in ART; not well served by legislation

Keppel Margaret Van; John L Yovich

doi:10.30574/gscbps.2020.11.3.0172

Authors

Keppel Margaret Van Psychologist & Counsellor, PIVET Medical Centre, Perth, Western Australia, Australia 6007
John L Yovich Medical Director, PIVET Medical Centre, Perth, Western Australia, Australia 6007.

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.30574/gscbps.2020.11.3.0172

Keywords:

Assisted Reproductive Technology ART, Donor gamete ethics, Donor embryo Ethics, Surrogacy ethics, In Vitro Fertilization IVF, ART ethics, ART legislation, Social responsibility

Abstract

Probably most personnel working within assisted reproductive technology (ART) have occasionally held concerns about a patient’s capacity to parent. This raises the question of responsibilities under the principle of the “best interests of the child”. This principle has long been enshrined in advisory guidelines as well as legislation, as though the meaning and intent are self-evident. Whilst its intent is laudable, its application is problematic. Clinical practice is patient-centred, and ART personnel are highly responsive to the desire and sense of immediacy of the infertile woman (or couple) for a child. However, over a 39-year period, our clinic has faced a number of challenging patient presentations, causing serious concerns about the potential implications and/or risks to a child conceived by ART and creating the dilemma: do we treat, or not treat? Drawing on these examples, this paper discusses the nature of “the principle”, from a variety of perspectives. It considers that the best interests of the future child are served by addressing the medical and psychosocial concerns of the potential mother, rather than engage with the ill-defined and poorly understood principle of “the best interests of the child” in legislation and deny her the opportunity for motherhood based on a perception of an unfavourable environment for a future child.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

References

Yovich JL and Craft IL. (2018). Founding pioneers of IVF: Independent innovative researchers generating livebirths within 4 years of the first birth. Reprod Biol, 18, 317-323.

Yovich JL. (2020). Founding pioneers of IVF Update: Independent innovative researchers generating livebirths within 4 years of the first birth. Reprod Biol, 20, 111-113.

NHMRC. (2017). Ethical guidelines on the use of assisted reproductive technology in clinical practice and research. Australian Government: National Health and Medical Research Council Document, 104.

Human Reproductive Technology Act. (1991). (Western Australia), 156.

Fertility Society of Australia. (2016). ANZICA, “Mission and Goals” “The best interests of the child: The least detrimental alternative”, 10.

Fertility Society of Australia. (2015). Code of practice for assisted reproductive technology units; Reproductive Technology Accreditation Committee, 30.

Pennings G, de Wert G, Shenfield F, Cohen J, Tarlatzis B and Devroey P. (2007). ESHRE Task Force on Ethics and Law: the welfare of the child in medically assisted reproduction. Hum Reprod, 22, 2585-2588.

Goldstein J, Solnit AJ, Goldstein S and Freud A. (1998). The Best Interests of the Child: The Least Detrimental Alternative. Simon and Schuster, New York, 352.

Newman JE, Fitzgerald O, Paul RC and Chambers GM. (2019). Assisted reproductive technology in Australia and New Zealand 2017. Sydney: National Perinatal Statistics Unit, the University of New South Wales, Sydney, 83.

Blyth E and Cameron C. (1998). The welfare of the child: An emerging issue in the regulation of assisted conception. Hum Reprod, 13, 2339-2355.

Daniels K, Blyth E, Hall D and Hanson K. (2000). The best interests of the child in human reproduction: The interplay between the state, professionals and parents. Politics Life Sci, 19, 33-44.

Parfit D. (2011).On what matters, Volumes 1 and 2. Oxford University Press, 1440.

McMillan J. (2014).Making sense of child welfare when regulating human reproductive technologies. J Bioeth Inquiry, 11, 47-55.

Lee E, Macvarish J and Sheldon S. (2014). Assessing Child Welfare under the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008: A Case Study in Medicalisation? Sociology of Health and Illness, 36, 500-515.

Singer P. (2011) "Does Anything Matter?" Australian Broadcasting Corporation; Religion and Ethics.

Robertson JA. (2004). Procreative liberty and harm to offspring in assisted reproduction, 30, 7-40.

Breen C. (2001). Poles apart? The best Interests of the child and assisted reproduction in the antipodes and Europe. International J Child Rights, 9, 157-180.

United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. (2015).

Children and Community Services Act, 2004, (Western Australia). (2015). Best interests of child are paramount consideration, 6(7), 8.

Thorpe R, Croy S, Petersen K and Pitts M. (2012). In the best interests of the child? Regulating assisted reproductive technologies and the well-being of offspring in three Australian states. Int J Law Policy Family, 26, 259-277.

De Lacey SL, Peterson K and MacMillan J. (2015). Child interests in reproductive technology: how is the welfare principle applied in practice? Hum Reprod, 30, 616-624.

Stern JE, Cramer CP, Green RM, Garrod A and DeVries KO. (2003). Determining access to assisted reproductive technology reactions of clinic directors to ethically complex case scenarios. Hum Reprod, 18, 1343-1352.

Pennings G. (1999).Measuring the welfare of the child: in search of the appropriate evaluation principle. Hum Reprod, 14, 1146-1150.

Yovich JL, Casper R, Chapman M, Tesarik J and Anderson RA. (2019). Regulating ART: time for a re-think in the light of increasing efficacy, safety and efficiency. Reprod Biomed Online, 38, 483-486.