Autonomy versus protection--who benefits from the regulation of IVF?
Parliament will soon be asked to decide about the future regulation of IVF in the United Kingdom. Given that IVF is now considered to be a routine clinical procedure and the fact that we live in an age of unprecedented emphasis on autonomy and patient rights, the justification for continuing to regulate this form of treatment will undoubtedly be challenged. This article considers the four key reasons why the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) was originally established-to protect patients and their children, to allay public concerns, to protect scientific freedom and to protect IVF practitioners from claims of unethical behaviour-and asks to what extent these reasons are still valid today. Acknowledging that there are difficulties and frustrations with the HFEA, the article warns that all parties-patients, researchers, IVF practitioners and society-have a lot to lose by limiting the scope of regulation. It concludes that before moving too quickly to get rid of the HFEA as we know it, we need to think carefully about whether the burdens and restrictions imposed by regulation are sufficiently onerous to justify this loss.
English
Veronica
V
Deputy Head of Medical Ethics, British Medical Association, BMA House, Tavistock Square, London WC1H 9JP. venglish@bma.org.uk
D005307:Fertilization in Vitro / Q000941:ethics / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence / Q000592:standards; D033161:Government Regulation; D006801:Humans; D007883:Legislation, Medical; D026684:Personal Autonomy; D011640:Public Policy; D006113:United Kingdom