Debate 2: Cross Border Reproductive Care Should Be Banned

Abstract

Motion: For The opinions expressed in this debate are not the personal opinions of the presenter but are points raised to provide a debate. CBRC is defined as “movement of persons from one jurisdiction to another in order to access or provide treatment. Often called “reproductive tourism” but it is “reproductive exile” Existed for many years before fertility treatment-Irish women going to England for abortion. Why? Either unavailable or more affordable. Avoid legal, religious, or ethical restrictions Do we want to encourage breaking the laws of home? Do we encourage exploitation of poor donors/surrogates? Do we want to encourage avoidance of record keeping of donors? CONCERNS Health and safety Legal difficulties, e.g., passport for child Exploitation Children as a “commodity” Children abandoned e.g., Abnormalities SAFEGUARDS Balance rights of individuals against rights of children Need global guidelines/laws- UNTIL THEN; BAN CBRC. Motion: Against Cross-border reproductive care (CBRC) has become a dynamic global phenomenon encompassing various fertility treatments and practices, including surrogacy, embryo donation, age limit, marital status, cost considerations, advanced technology, support systems, known clinician or clinic preference, frozen embryo use, international job transfers, sex selection, PGTA restrictions, and restrictions on the number of embryos transferred. This debate revolves around the motion against banning CBRC, acknowledging its multifaceted nature and the need for comprehensive evaluation of its legal, ethical, and economic implications. CBRC has emerged as a lifeline for individuals facing restrictive reproductive laws in their home countries, offering hope and expanded choices for family building. Critics express concerns over potential exploitation, inadequate regulations, and safety risks associated with CBRC. Ethical dilemmas arise regarding patient autonomy, justice, and discrimination, particularly for LGBTQI individuals seeking fertility treatments in less legally restrictive countries. International organizations such as ESHRE, ASRM, ICMART, and IFFS have initiated efforts to collect data and set guidelines for CBRC. However, more work is needed to establish standardized data registries and harmonize laws to accurately assess the magnitude and scope of CBRC worldwide. A balanced approach to CBRC involves collaborative global governance and cooperation to address challenges while upholding patient rights and ensuring responsible practices. Facilitating access to advanced fertility treatments and safeguarding against potential risks are paramount considerations in shaping the future of cross-border reproductive care. In conclusion, the complexities surrounding CBRC warrant thoughtful deliberation and international collaboration. Rather than imposing a blanket ban, an inclusive approach focusing on transparency, safety, and ethical considerations will foster a responsible and balanced implementation of cross-border reproductive care.