Proposed changes to IVF laws breach several human rights provisions, are not worded clearly and raise multiple ethical concerns which must be properly debated before being passed into law, Aditus Foundation said.
In a statement issued on Friday, Aditus urged Health Minister Chris Fearne to slam the brakes on parliamentary debate concerning revised IVF laws until public discussions and stakeholder meetings are held.
“The dignity and rights of prospective parents and future children deserve the highest form of legislative and social protection, and these can only be achieved if civil society organisations, medical practitioners, academics, and parliamentarians carefully examine the relevant themes,” it said in the statement.
MPs are currently debating changes to IVF laws which would, among other things, remove existing restrictions for gay couples and single mothers, introduce embryo freezing and allowing for unused embryos to be put up for adoption.
READ: Parliament debates IVF law as Fearne pledges to consult
Aditus highlighted multiple concerns with proposed legislative changes, saying that while the proposed Bill was on the right track when it proposed removing discrimination against same-sex couples and decriminalising egg and sperm donation, other aspects raised “extremely serious human rights concerns that cannot be dismissed”.
Chief among these concerns are plans to introduce embryo adoption, with the platform asking whether a parent forced into such a stressful decision could truly provide free and informed consent.
This, Aditus said, would violate parents’s right to found a family and right to privacy, and could even in some cases arguably be a form of inhuman and degrading treatment.
Plans to task the Embryo Protection Authority with deciding whether prospective adoptive parents were “suitable” or “eligible” candidates for adopting an embryo were also questioned by human rights NGO.
It noted that child adoption was a highly regulated affair, with strict criteria, assessment procedures and monitoring requirements, and asked whether the aforementioned authority was up to the task.
The NGO expressed scepticism about surrogacy plans, saying that while it could be a legitimate pathway to parenthood for many couples, the risk of exploitation of women was very real and required an extremely cautious approach.
Furthermore, the NGO noted, many of the Bill’s provisions were not clearly worded.
“It is impossible for the nation to endorse such an important law if it is unable to understand it’s most important provisions,” it said.