Over the last two weeks, there has been much debate over the conception and premature birth of the California octuplets. This debate and the outrage it has provoked have primarily been directed at the choices of the mother, Nadya Suleman, and the actions of her doctor, Dr. Michael Kamrava of the West Coast IVF Clinic. Just this week, the Medical Board of California announced that it was investigating Dr. Kamrava in an attempt to “substantiate if there was a violation of the standard of care.” The American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) has express interest in assisting in this investigation.
ASMR guidelines recommend that a woman of Suleman’s age only have 2 or 3 embryos implanted in any one in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatment cycle. In this case, Dr. Kamrava is reported to have implanted 6 embryos – two of which divided and became two sets of twins, resulting in eight babies.
While an investigation of Dr. Kamrava’s actions and medical judgment certainly seems warranted, most of the numerous news stories and commentaries have failed to address a critical contributing factor to this controversy: the lack of any meaningful regulations of artificial reproductive technologies (ART), specifically the IVF industry. However, this is a discussion that we must have as more and more women and families turn to ART as a means of having biologically-related children.
Currently, there is little data about the nature and growth of ART and very little federal or state regulation of it. ART needs to be regulated, in large part, to protect the health of mothers and the children conceived and to preserve parental relationships and the dignity of human procreation.
A March 2004 report by the President’s Council on Bioethics, Reproduction & Responsibility, constitutes the most in-depth review and analysis of the fertility industry in the United States since 1978. The report’s critical findings and conclusions include:
- There is no uniform, comprehensive, and enforceable system of data collection, monitoring, or oversight for the biotechnologies affecting human reproduction.
- There is minimal direct governmental regulation of the practice of assisted reproduction.
- There is extensive professional self-regulation of the practice of assisted reproduction, but compliance with the standards invoked is purely voluntary.
- There is no comprehensive, uniform, and enforceable mechanism for oversight of how the new reproductive biotechnologies affect the well-being of the children conceived with their aid, the egg donors, or the gestational mothers.
- There are no nationally uniform laws or policies relating to access of assisted reproduction.
- Given the present framework of regulation, novel technologies and practices that are successful move from the experimental context to clinical practice with relatively little oversight or deliberation. Once in practice, these techniques are used at clinicians’ discretion, with little or no external oversight.
Clearly then, it is important that we move forward and seek to provide meaningful oversight and regulation of ART and the IVF industry. AUL already advocates such regulation and has produced model legislation entitled “Assisted Reproductive Technologies Disclosure and Risk Reduction Act“.
For more information about ART and IVF, the lack of current regulation, and the need to regulate these industries, see Clarke Forsythe, “Preserving Human Dignity: Regulation of Assisted Reproductive Technologies (ART).”
{ 1 trackback }
{ 1 comment… read it below or add one }
Nadya Suleman recently launched a website to promote the charitable cause she and Dr. Kamrava have created — one high order multiple birth of eight children, a set of twins, and four more — a total of 14 children. On her website, the mother of the octuplets is literally begging for assistance in supporting and raising the children she and Kamrava created.
What’s wrong with Michael Kamrava? Is he broke? Is he incapable of supporting these children?
What aberration of the law allows a man and woman to create children and then permits the man to walk away from the kids, scot free?
Why should any of us, especially the citizens of California through their state agencies, pay for someone else’s kids when they are capable of supporting them, themselves?
I for one can’t imagine Kamrava can’t support a few kids. Besides, since he’s a doctor, his medical skills would probably come in handy for any special needs they may have.
I’m guessing there’s a lot of guys who would agree that, hey, if they’re paying their child support, why shouldn’t Kamrava? He made ‘em, he should pay for ‘em.
And if the laws don’t allow it, then they need to be changed.