The Hindu (
Women’s health activists have asked the Centre not to
rush into finalising the ‘Assisted Reproductive Technologies
(Regulation) Bill, 2013’ and, instead, hold wider deliberations with
women’s rights organisations, queer rights, human rights and legal
rights organisations across the country.
In its
response to the Draft Bill, Sama Resource Group for Women and Health,
while appreciating the initiative of the Union Ministry of Health and
Family Welfare (MoHFW) for making efforts to regulate the booming
Assisted Reproductive Technologies (ART) industry, including commercial
surrogacy, in the country, has said though the Bill acknowledges the
importance and significance of ethical practices in the context of ART
services, in the present form, it is inadequate in protecting and
safeguarding the rights and health of women going for IVF techniques,
recruited as surrogates and children born through commercial surrogacy.
It also lacks setting the standards for medical
practice and completely ignores the regulation of the third party agents
who play pivotal role in arranging surrogates such as surrogacy agents,
tourism operators and surrogacy home operators.
“The
Draft Bill should effectively regulate and monitor consultancies,
surrogacy agents, surrogacy home operators, private agencies and
travel/tourism firms, law firms involved in offering and
promoting ART and surrogacy services.”
The
Bill should permit genetic surrogacy, a simpler, less invasive form of
surrogacy and not restrict to the more complicated, expensive and
invasive gestational surrogacy. The upper age limit for undergoing
assisted reproductive technology procedure should be clearly stated by
the Bill.
The Bill should stipulate the number of
cycles a woman can undergo as a surrogate as the number of live births
is not equivalent to the number of ART cycles and given the low success
rates of ARTs, it often implies multiple cycles for successful outcomes,
thus posing serious risks to the surrogate’s health.
The Draft Bill should clearly list the various health risks and adverse outcomes of these technologies.
“Though
the present draft does mention that ART procedure carry health risks
both to the mother and child, there is no listing of the risks and
adverse outcomes of these technologies for children,” Sama has pointed
out.
No pre-natal testing, sex-selection, foetal
reduction or abortion should be done without the permission of the
surrogate by the intended parents. Moreover, the intended parents cannot
demand or force her to follow a particular diet, religious rituals or
lifestyle during pregnancy.
The pattern of payment
to surrogates must be clearly stated in the Bill and should be in the
best interests of the surrogate. The present Draft Rules on payment is
exceedingly imbalanced and unfavourable towards the surrogate.
While
some of the definitions have been added in the present 2013 draft,
changes have been made in definition related to eligibility of accessing
ARTs. The present draft defines “Couple” as a relationship between a
male person and female person who live together in a shared household
through a relationship in the nature of marriage. Therefore, the Bill
has confined itself to provision of ARTs within a heteronormative
framework. It is also clear that as per the definition gay couple(s)
cannot access ARTs in India, once the Bill is implemented. Current
clause in the Draft Bill is discriminatory, baseless, and a violation of
rights to equality, freedom, and reproduction, claims Sama.
The
status of the child in case of death of the individual or couple
(married) commissioning surrogacy needs to be taken cognisance in the
proposed Bill.
This is important not only in cases
of trans-national surrogacy (where there might be concerns related to
citizenship), but also in cases of surrogacy for Indian individual or
couple.
No comments:
Post a Comment