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.
Highlights
The overriding motivation for those personnel involved in the field of assisted reproductive technology (ART) is to assist people achieve their desire of parenting healthy children
We address this topic using clinical and conceptual material from an Australian perspective and identify ways in which ART practice may better address the interests of the future child without discrimination to patients
Any decision not to treat raises the question of unfair discrimination, or even a legal challenge on the rights of an ART clinic to deny anybody access to treatment on nonmedical grounds
Summary
The overriding motivation for those personnel involved in the field of assisted reproductive technology (ART) is to assist people achieve their desire of parenting healthy children. The decision “not to treat” may be made inconsistently, certainly against the interests of the patients, and probably against the philosophical evolution of modern times, progressing towards the concept of “all life opportunity is better than no life”, especially when conception outside ART requires no approval. We address this topic using clinical and conceptual material from an Australian perspective and identify ways in which ART practice may better address the interests of the future child without discrimination to patients. We conclude that the principle is not an appropriate clinical guide and should be removed from legislation, Codes of Practice (COP) and Practice Guidelines
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
