Government Regulation of Fertility/Procreation Law: US vs Britain - Term Paper Example

 Government regulation of fertility/procreation law – US v Britain The differentiation of social conditions in countries worldwide has led to the alteration of the criteria used by legislators when developing the rules regulating the various social and scientific initiatives. Fertility law has been one of the sectors that highly influenced by the changes developed in the social and cultural traditions and ethics worldwide – referring mostly to the last decade. Because of the importance of the sector for the protection of the social integration, precautions have been taken in order for the changes introduced to be aligned with the existing social beliefs; in certain cases, the rules established in regard to the specific sector have caused the negative reactions of the public – mostly because the plans developed have been considered as opposed to the social or scientific ethics and morals. On the other hand, governments internationally have used different approaches when intervening in the specific sector; these approaches are presented and evaluated taking into consideration the common social beliefs and ethics – as being the same for countries internationally – but also the local social and cultural characteristics; reference is made to the fertility law approaches developed in US and Britain. In order to understand the relationship between fertility laws of US and those of Britain, it would be necessary to present the framework of fertility/ procreation law in both these countries. In UK, the country’s legal framework in regard to the specific issue is consisted from three legislative texts: ‘the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 and the Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Statutory Storage Period for Embryos and Gametes) Regulations 2009’ (Gamble and Ghevaert, 2010). The Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Deceased Fathers) Act 2003 is another legal text aiming to help in the resolution of disputes developed in the context of the specific sector of law. In Britain, the criminal aspects of fertilisation are explained in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (c. 33). On the other hand, in US the legal framework on the specific field is less integrated; reference is made to the United States Code (Title 42,263a7) where just certain aspects of fertilisation are presented without making adequate explanations on the impact and the consequences of fertilisation as a necessary part of the continuation of human existence; on the other hand, fertility law in USA cannot be integrated because of the power of each state to use different criteria for evaluating such cases. Across the country, a series of clinics and organizations have been developed aiming to offer their help in regard to problems related to fertility law. The research on the frameworks developed by UK and USA in regard to the fertility law has led to a series of important assumptions: different cultural approaches have been used by the above countries in regard to the specific subject. In Britain, the societal goal furthered through the governmental policies on the particular field is the limitation of inequality in having a child, i.e. fertility law is used as a tool for the promotion of human rights; this fact is made clearer in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008. On the other hand, in USA the societal goal that the fertility law has is not distinctive; in fact, in USA, legislative texts have been developed in regard to the fertilisation as part of the human life but also as part of the agricultural production; fertilisation in USA is considered as another part of the science; no particular emphasis is given on the human elements of the specific sector. In accordance with the above, fertility law in UK is likely to be used by individuals towards the achievement of two different targets: to have a child but also to achieve a recognition of their rights; i.e. in Britain, fertilisation is likely to be used as a tool for asking for certain social rights and recognition; on the other hand, in US, the existing framework of fertility law is available for achieving a particular target: for having a child; no social extension is given to the specific activity and it is for this reason that no emphasis has been given by USA legislators on the social aspects of fertilisation. In terms of their cost, no particular differentiation seems to exist between the approaches used by the two above countries in regard to fertilisation; medical and social support is available to individuals that face relevant problems. On the other hand, the increased cost of medical services in USA – compared to Britain – could possibly result to the increased cost of the procedure in USA – compared to Britain. In any case, it would be depended on the needs of each individual and the conditions (health, social and professional framework) of each case. The approaches used by Britain and USA in regard to the fertility law have certain consequences: a) in Britain, the emphasis on the relationship between the fertilisation and the human rights has led to the increase of the number of individuals asking for the provision of relevant services (Eriksson, 2010); the problem is that in most of these cases fertilisation is not viewed as a social function but rather as a method for acquiring social rights that cannot be awarded in a different way; however, the fertilisation cannot be viewed just as a right but also as a responsibility, b) in USA, the promotion of the scientific character of fertilisation – referring to the abilities of the science to offer various methods of fertilisation has led to another severe consequence; the human factor of the process is not taken into severe consideration; fertilisation is not a scientific process; it is a human-related process which needs to keep its character otherwise severe social or personal (psychological) turbulences may occur. Of course, the intervention of science is critical in confronting a series of health problems; however, fertilisation is not exactly a health problem (Carrell, 2010); for this reason, borders should be set – which exist in any case in all health – related issues – regarding the potentials of the science to intervene in human functions. In fact, the aspects of fertility law reflect the social and cultural characteristics of Britain and USA; in Britain, human rights are of significant importance; any potential effort is made by legislators and judges so that these rights are adequately protected by the state; it is perhaps for this reason that fertility law in Britain emphasizes on the human – rights aspect of fertilisation. On the other hand, in USA, science has a critical role in the development of all human activities (De Cruz, 2001); it is in this context, that fertilisation in USA was considered to be indispensable element of the scientific research. However, a balance should be kept between these two approaches; the human rights – legal aspects of fertilisation should not be overestimated. Moreover, the scientific aspect of fertilisation should be also limited. Works Cited Carrell, Douglas. Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility: Integrating Modern Clinical and Laboratory Practice. Springer, 2010 De Cruz, Peter. Comparative healthcare law. Routledge, 2001 Eriksson, Maja. Reproductive freedom: in the context of international human rights and humanitarian law. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2000 Francome, Colin. Abortion in the USA and the UK. Ashgate Publishing, 2004 Gamble and Ghevaert, Fertility Law pages, 2010, . Gamble, N. and Ghevaert, L. ‘The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008: Revolution or Evolution?’ Family Law, August 2009, pp.730-733 Singer, Peter & Adrian M. Viens. The Cambridge textbook of bioethics. Cambridge University Press, 2008 Timm, Annette. The Politics of Fertility in Twentieth-Century Berlin. Cambridge University Press, 2010 Legislation Britain Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (c. 33) Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 (c. 22) Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Deceased Fathers) Act 2003 (c. 24) Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 (c. 37) Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Statutory Storage Period for Embryos and Gametes) Regulations 2009’ USA United States Code: Title 42,263a6. Fees United States Code: Title 42,263a7. Definitions Fertility Clinic Success Rate and Certification Act of 1992 Read More