To distinguish between the use and misuse of ART, we must first understand the basic ethical basis on which the „treatment” of ART is accepted by society in the first place. Why do we undertake ART and what are our ethical and social justifications? However, another view, also based on utilitarian analysis, is that the same ART (egg retrieval and IVF or ICSI) could be used in conjunction with surrogacy to significantly reduce potential harm while facilitating older women`s psychological/social desire for a family and mary owners to capitalize on their investments. In women, this could be achieved through egg donation from a young donor, IVF with sperm from the elderly woman`s partner, and transfer of the resulting embryo to a young surrogate mother. In mares, egg retrieval, ICSI and embryo transfer into the uterus of a young mare could allow us to both eliminate the risk of pregnancy for older mares and ensure the well-being of their offspring. This raises the question of whether the use of egg retrieval and IVF constitutes abuse or ethical use of ART. Part of our inability to resolve this debate, at least in animal species, is due to the paucity of evidence of short- and long-term harm associated with ART. Fortunately, the distinction between use and abuse is not always so problematic. Freezing and storing seeds is an example. In humans, there are clear benefits to being able to freeze sperm – for example, facilitating reproduction after cancer treatment or reproductive self-employment. In non-human animals, the ability to freeze and transport sperm is not only economically beneficial to humans, but also means that the animals themselves do not have to be exposed to the stress and disease risks of transport. For all species, it appears that the welfare and welfare benefits of frozen seeds outweigh the harms, and it is therefore relatively easy to define this ART as ethically permissible rather than abusive.
The Act provides a means of distinguishing between the use and misuse of ART. The regulation of new techniques was a recurring theme during the Q&A sessions at Fertility 2021. In human medicine in the United Kingdom, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act (2008, as amended) (HFE Act) defines the legitimate and socially acceptable uses of ART for clinical and research purposes. This legislation is constantly evolving as technology evolves and in consultation with public opinion. In veterinary medicine, there is no such legal definition. The use of ART is regulated by the Veterinarians Act (1966) (VSA) and/or the Animal Welfare Act (2006) (AWA) when performed for clinical reasons and by the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act (1986) (A(SP)A) when performed for research purposes. Unlike A(SP)A, neither the VSA nor the AWA mention prenatal animal forms, so they do not have protection in terms of clinical procedures. In addition, the handling of an animal embryo outside an animal body is obviously not regulated by any of the three laws, whether carried out by veterinarians or non-veterinarians.
This is in stark contrast to human medicine, where the HFE law specifically protects human embryos outside the body. The use of sperm/egg donated by a relative or known friend of a couple should be allowed, as these are now the most common sources of donors in IVF clinics around the world, which will reduce the cost of treatment. A relative or known person may act as a surrogate to prevent commercial surrogacy. Physicians should discuss their fees with the patient and not report them. The requirement to have 13 separate rooms for the operation of assisted reproduction clinics is a big problem, as the cost of IVF would increase significantly. A small space can be used for good results. (1) Shenoy Vidhya S. Artificial Insemination and In Vitro Fertilization and Challenges for the Legal System, Legal Services India.com (2) Rao Kamini A and Brinsden Peter R, The infertility manual, 1st edition, Jaypee and FOGSI publication; pp. 348-497.