Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Bill 2020 | UPSC

ASSISTED REPRODUCTIVE TECHNOLOGY  BILL 2020

Union Health Minister Harsh Vardhan introduced the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Bill, 2020 (Bill) in the Lok Sabha on September 14.

WHAT IS ART ?

• It includes transferring the gamete or the embryo into the reproductive system of a woman.

• ART Bill makes it mandatory for all fertility clinics and banks in India to register themselves with a national registering authority .

ART services will be provided through:

(i) ART clinics, which offer ART related treatments and procedures, and

(ii) ART banks, which store and supply gametes.

AIM

REGULATION OF ART CLINICS AND BANKS

• The National Registry will be established under the Bill and will act as a central database with details of all ART clinics and banks in the country.

• Clinics and banks will be registered only if they adhere to certain standards (specialised manpower, physical infrastructure etc).
• The registration will be valid for five years and can be renewed for a further five years.
• Registration may be cancelled or suspended if the entity contravenes the provisions of the Bill.

CHALLENGES

• It fails to respond to the needs of the 27 million infertile Indian couples.
• The egg donor’s interests are subordinated in a Bill proposed in her name.

• Even here, egg donation as an altruistic act is possible only once a woman has fulfilled her duties to the patriarchal institution of marriage.
• Children born from ART do not have the right to know their parentage.
• The Bill requires pre-implantation genetic testing where the embryo suffers from “pre-existing, heritable, life-threatening or genetic diseases”.

IMPRECISE DEFINITIONS

• Core ART processes are left undefined; several of these are defined in the SRB but not the Bill.

• The Bill designates surrogacy boards under the SRB to function as advisory bodies for ART, which is desirable.
• However, both Bills set up multiple bodies for registration which will result in duplication or worse, lack of regulation.
• The Bill’s prohibition on the sale, transfer, or use of gametes and embryos is poorly worded.

INFRINGEMENTS

• The ART Bill does not do what it says on the label. It does little to protect the egg donor.
• Harvesting of eggs is an invasive process which, if performed incorrectly, can result in death.
• The Bill requires an egg donor’s written consent .

• She receives no compensation or reimbursement of expenses for loss of salary, time and effort.
• Failing to pay for bodily services constitutes unfree labour, which is prohibited by Article 23 of the Constitution.

HURDLES FOR A SINGLE WOMEN

• A single woman cannot commission surrogacy but can access ART.
• The Bill allows for a married heterosexual couple and a woman above the age of marriage to use ARTs.
• It excludes single men, cohabiting heterosexual couples and LGBTQI individuals and couples from accessing ARTs.
• This violates Article 14 of the Constitution and the right to privacy jurisprudence of Puttaswamy, where the Supreme Court .

CONCERNS

• The first concern is who can access ART.
• These disorders need specification or the Bill risks promoting an impermissible programme of eugenics.
• Prior versions of the Bill regulated research using embryos, which must be brought back.
• Although the Bill and the SRB regulate ARTs and surrogacy, respectively, there is considerable overlap between both sectors. Yet the Bills do not work in tandem.

• The same actions taken by a surrogacy clinic and ART clinic (likely to be the same entity) attract varied regulation.
• Previous versions of the Bill required independence between ART banks and ART clinics.
• There is no such distinction now

FOREIGN CITIZENS

• There is no prohibition on foreign citizens accessing ARTs.

• This is an illogical result which fails to reflect the true spirit of the Constitution.

OFFENCE AND PUNISHMENT

• Clinics must instead have ethics committees.
• Mandated counselling services should also be independent of the clinic.

• The poor enforcement of the PCPNDT Act, 1994, demonstrates that enhanced punishments do not secure compliance — lawyers and judges also lack medical expertise.
• Patients already sue fertility clinics in consumer redressal fora, which is preferable to criminal courts.

• Offences under the Bill are bailable but not under the SRB.