Evaluation of Childrearing Competence by Fertility Clinics in Different Countries
Keywords:
Assisted Reproductive Technologies, access to treatment, parenting competence, prospective child's welfare, child welfare regulatory framework, codes of practice and guidelinesAbstract
Mental health, cognitive growth, socialization, enjoyment of minimum living standards, success in life and generally child welfare altogether depend to a large extent on having competent parents. On the other hand, the couples' incompetence in performing parental task properly, would place a great economic burden on society. Since there would be more opportunity to intervene in artificial reproduction and as a result, prevention of such problems is possible, some countries have enacted laws or have developed guidelines in pursuit of securing child welfare, with varying degrees of child welfare protection, specificity in defining the scope of child welfare, implementation means, and limits for infertility treatment clinics in assessing child welfare. This study aims to analyze eight different countries’ approach to child welfare protection in the context of access to Assisted Reproductive Technologies, their strengths and weaknesses in safeguarding child welfare, and making suggestions as how to develop laws and regulations which are better aligned with child welfare protection.
References
1. Rutz HJ, Balkan EM. Reproducing class: education, neoliberalism, and the rise of the new middle class in Istanbul. New York: Berghahn Publications; 2009. 53 p.
2. Kindregan CP, McBrien, M. Assisted reproductive technology: a lawyer's guide to emerging law and science. Chicago: ABA Publishing; 2006. 1 p.
3. Taymor ML. Infertility: a clinician’s guide to diagnosis and treatment. New York: Plenum Medical Book Company; 2012.106 p.
4. Youssef N, Rizk B, Decotis D, Rezk Y. The interaction between mood disorders and infertility. In: Rizk B, Sallam HM, editors. Clinical infertility and in vitro fertilization. New Delhi: Jaypee Brothers; 2012. p 165.
5. Benagiano G, Carrara S, Filippi V. Sex and reproduction: an evolving relationship. Hum. Reprod. Update. 2010 Jan; 16(1): 96.
6. Hendrick J. Legal aspects of child health care. London: Chapman and Hall; 1997. 116 p.
7. Brezina PR, Ning N, Mitchell E, Zacur HA, Baramki TA, Zhao Y. Recent advances in assisted reproductive technology. Curr Obstet Gynecol Rep. 2012 Jul; 1: 166.
8. Allahbadia G. Contemporary perspectives on assisted reproductive technology. 1st ed. New Delhi: Elseiver; 2006. 331 p.
9. Gordon JD, DiMattina M. 100 questions & answers about infertility. Sudbury, Massachu- setts: Jones and Bartlett Learning; 2010. 202 p.
10. Chavez-Badiola A, Allahbadia GN. Textbook of minimal stimulation IVF. New Delhi: Jaypee Brothers; 2011. 162 p.
11. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 2002 assisted reproductive technology success rates. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; 2004. 62 p.
12. ICSI success rates [Internet]. Attain Fertility; 2019 Apr. 02 [cited 2020 Dec. 10]. Available from: http://attainfertility.com/topic/treatments-options-icsi-success-rates
13. Leo RJ. Competency and the capacity to make treatment decisions: a primer for primary care physicians. Prim Care Companion J. Clin. Psychiatry. 1999 Oct; 1(5): 131.
14. Hoghughi M. The importance of parenting in child health. BMJ. 1998 May; 316 (7144): 1545.
15. Westman JC. Licensing parents: can we prevent child abuse and neglect?. Cambridge, Mas- sachusetts: Perseus Publishing; 2007. 20 and 23 p.
16. Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council. New directions in child abuse and neglect research. Washington D.C.: National Academies Press; 2014. 4-35 p.
17. Boekaerts M. Self-regulation and effort investment. In: Damon W, Lerner RM, Renninger A, Sigel IE, editors. Handbook of child psychology, child psychology in practice. 6th ed. New Jersey: John Wiley and Sons; 2006. p 503.
18. Hinds TS, Giardino AP. Child physical abuse: current evidence, clinical practice, and policy directions. Washington D.C.: Springer; 2017. 32 p.
19. Mutcherson KM. Welcome to the wild west: protecting access to cross border fertility care in the United States. Cornell J. L. & Pub. Pol’y. 2012 Jan; 22(2): 356-364.
20. McGregor J, Dreifuss-Netter F. France and the United States: the legal and ethical differences in assisted reproductive technology (ART), Med. & L.. 2007 Mar; 26(1): 126-127.
21. Klock S. Psychosocial evaluation of the infertile patient. In: Covington SN, Hammer Burns L, editors. Infertility counseling: a comprehensive handbook for clinicians. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2006. p 87.
22. Moen P, Forest KB. Strengthening families: policy issues for the twenty-first century. In: Su- san MB, Steinmetz SK, editors. Handbook of marriage and the family. New York: Plenum Press; 1997. p 651.
23. Clements CA. What about the children - a call for regulation of assisted reproductive technology. Ind. L.J. 2009 Jan; 84(1): 331.
24. Nelson E. Law, Policy and reproductive autonomy. Oxford: Hartford Publishing; 2013. 243 p.
25. Apel SB. Access to assisted reproductive technologies. Mich. St. U. J. Med. & L. 2008; 12: 40- 41.
26. Gurmankin AD, Caplan AL, Braverman AM. Screening practices and beliefs of assisted re- productive technology programs. Fertil. & Steril. 2001 Jan; 83(1): 63.
27. Walker K. Should there be limits on who may access assisted reproductive services?. F. J. L. R. 2002 June; 6(1): 87.
28. Blyth E. From need “for a father” to need “for supportive parenting”: changing conceptualizations of the welfare of the child following assisted reproductive technology in the United Kingdom. In: Horsey K, editor. Revisiting the regulation of human fertilization and embryology. New York: Routledge; 2015. p 26.
29. Poots C. Ethical considerations regarding assisted reproductive technologies. Center for Medical Education; 2009. 23 p.
30. Lee E, Macvarish J, Sheldon S. Assessing child welfare under the Human Fertilization and Embryology Act 2008: a case study in medicalization?. Sociol. Health & Illn. 2014 Jan; 36(4): 504, 508 and 512-513.
31. De Lacey SL, Peterson K, McMillan J. Child interests in assisted reproductive technology: how is the welfare principle applied in practice. Hum. Reprod. 2015 Jan; 30(3): 617.
32. Liu C. Restricting access to infertility services: what is a justified limitation on reproductive freedom, the categorical exclusion of single women and same sex couples from infertility ser- vice and its role in defining what constitutes justified and unjustified limitation on reproductive freedom. Minn. J. L. Sci. & Tech. 2009; 10(1): 292.
33. Thrope R, Croy S, Petersen K, Pitts M. In the best interests of the child: regulating assisted reproductive technologies and the well-being of offspring in three Australian states. Int'l J.L. Pol'y & Fam. 2012 Dec; 26(3): 264.
34. Chambers GM. The intersection between economic and ethical aspects of ART. In: Schenker JG, editor. Ethical dilemmas in assisted reproductive technologies. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG; 2011. p 377.
35. Smith MK. Saviour siblings and the regulation of assisted reproductive technology: harm, ethics and law. New York: Routledge; 2016, 27 p.
36. Atwill N. France: new bioethics law [Internet]. Law Library of Congress; 2011 July 18 [cited 2021 February 01]. Available from: http://www.loc.gov/law/foreign-news/article/france-new- bioethics-law/.
37. Berthiau D. Law, bioethics and practice in France: forging a new legislative pact. Med. Health Care Philos. 2013 Feb; 16(1): 105.
38. Gomez1 VR, De La Rochebrochard E. Cross-border reproductive care among French patients: experiences in Greece, Spain and Belgium. Hum Reprod. 2013 Nov; 28(11): 3104.
39. Cho C. Defining parenthood: assisted reproduction in France. Yale J. Med. & L. 2011 Apr; 7: 19.
40. Corbet S. France drafts law to extend IVF to lesbian, single women [Internet]. AP News; 2019 August 04 [cited 2021 February 04]. Available from: https://apnews.com/article/48ff2014b3fe4f17b1c41d947cd5a0ec (accessed 02/04/2021)
41. Hales D, Lauzon L. An invitation to health. 2nd ed. Nelson Cengage Adapted; 2009. 202 p.
42. Nordic Council of Ministers. Assisted reproduction in the Nordic countries. Copenhagen: Norden; 2006. 72 p.
43. Pennings G. Decision-making authority of patients and fertility specialists in Belgian law. Reprod. Biomed. Online. 2007 July; 15(1): 19 and 21.
44. Prag P, Mills M.C. Assisted reproductive technology in Europe, usage and regulation in the context of cross-border reproductive care. Families and Societies. 2017 Jan; 43: 16.
45. Behjati-Ardakani Z, Karoubi MT, Milanifar A, Masrouri R, Akhondi MM. Embryo donation in Iranian legal system: a critical review. J. Reprod. Infertil. 2015 July; 16(3): 131-133.
46. Afshar L, Bagheri A. Embryo donation in Iran: an ethical review. Developing World Bioethics. 2012 June; 13(3): 121-123.
47. Shamsi Kooshki E, Allahbedashti N. The process of justifying assisted reproductive technologies in Iran. Indian J. Med. Ethics. 2015 Apr; 12(2): 90-91.
48. Milanifar A, Behjati-Ardekani Z, Akhondi MM. An evaluation of Iranian judges’ decisions about the Act of Embryo Donation. Int. J. Fertil. & Steril. 2015 July; 9(2): 256-259.
49. Matlabi H, Rasouli A, Hamedi Behtash H, Faraghi Dastjerd A, Khazemi B. Factors responsible for early and forced marriage in Iran. Science J. Pub. Health. 2013 Nov; 1(5): 227.
50. Granne I, Corfield L. Legal, ethical and regulatory aspects of assisted reproductive technology. In: Coward K, Wells D, editors. Textbook of clinical embryology. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2013. p 365.
51. Pattinson SD. Medical law and ethics. London: Sweet & Maxwell. 2006; 270 p.
52. Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority. Tomorrow’s children: report of the policy review of welfare of the child assessments in licensed assisted conception clinics. London: HFEA; 2005. 6-8 p.
53. The Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority. Tomorrow’s children: a consultation on guidance to licensed fertility clinics on taking into account the welfare of children to be born of assisted contraception treatment. London: HFEA; 2005. 4-6 p.
54. ESHRE Task Force on Ethics and Law. Lifestyle-related factors and access to medically assisted reproduction. Hum. Reprod. 2010 Mar; 25(3): 4-5.
55. Baylis F, Borgerson K, Hoffmaster B, Sherwin S. Health care ethics in Canada. Toronto: Nelson Education Limited; 2011. 402 p.
56. Statements by the task force ethics and law [Internet]. ESHRE; Publication date unknown [cited 2021 February 01]. Available from: https://www.eshre.eu/Specialty-groups/Special- Interest- Groups/Ethics-and-Law/Documents-of-the-Task-Force-Ethics-Law
57. ESHRE Task Force on Ethics and Law. ESHRE task force on law and ethics 13: the welfare of the child in medically assisted reproduction. Hum Reprod. 2007 Oct; 22(10): 2585.
58. De Wert G, Dondorp W, Shenfield F, Barri P, Devroey P, Diedrich K et al. ESHRE task force on ethics and law 23: medically assisted reproduction in singles, lesbian and gay couples, and transsexual people. Hum. Reprod. 2014 Sep; 29(9): 1862.
59. Knowles LP, Kaebnick GE. Reprogenetics: law, policy, and ethical issues. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press; 2007. 1989 p.
60. The Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Child-rearing ability and the provision of fertility services: an ethics committee opinion. Fertil. Steril. 2017 Dec; 108(6): 944-947.
61. The Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Access to fertility services by transgender persons: an ethics committee opinion. Fertil. Steril. 2015 Nov; 104(5): 4.
62. The Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Access to fertility treatment by gays, lesbians, and unmarried persons: an ethics committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2013 Dec; 100(6): 1525.
