Frozen Embryos & the ART Act (GS 3: Bio-Ethics/Science)

Frozen Embryos & the ART Act (GS 3: Bio-Ethics/Science)

Why in News?  The Delhi High Court recently issued a notice to the Union Government regarding a “blanket ban” on the donation of surplus frozen embryos.

• The Conflict: Under the current ART Act, thousands of viable embryos must be “allowed to perish” (destroyed) after 10 years if not used by the original couple.
• The PIL Argument: IVF specialist Dr. Aniruddha Malpani argues that it is “ethically irrational” to destroy life-ready embryos when other infertile couples are willing to adopt them.

Key Provisions of the ART Act, 2021 (Relating to Embryos):

The Act was designed to regulate the “mushrooming” of IVF clinics and prevent the commercialization of human gametes.

• Section 28 (Storage): Embryos can be stored for a maximum of 10 years.
• Usage Restriction: Unused embryos must be preserved only for the original commissioning couple. They cannot be used for any other couple or individual.
• The “Destruction” Mandate: After 10 years, or if the couple no longer wants them, the embryos must either be:
  1. Donated for medical research (with consent).
  2. Allowed to perish (Destroyed).
• Double Donor IVF vs. Embryo Donation: The law allows a couple to use a donor egg and donor sperm simultaneously (creating a “fresh” embryo with no genetic link to them). However, it forbids the same couple from “adopting” a pre-existing “frozen” embryo from another couple.

The Legal & Ethical Analysis:

A. The Constitutional Challenge (Articles 14 & 21):

• Article 14 (Right to Equality): The PIL argues there is an “arbitrary classification.” If the law allows a child to be born via “Double Donor IVF” (no genetic link to parents), why does it ban “Embryo Donation” (also no genetic link)? Both result in the same outcome, yet one is a crime and the other is legal.
• Article 21 (Right to Life & Reproductive Autonomy): Reproductive choice is a facet of personal liberty. Forcing a couple to destroy their viable embryos—which they may view as “potential life”—violates their dignity and decisional privacy.

B. The “Embryo Adoption” Concept:

• Unlike traditional adoption, which involves a born child, Embryo Adoption happens at the cellular stage.
• Pro-Adoption Argument: It is cheaper than a full IVF cycle and prevents the “waste” of biological life.
• Anti-Adoption (Government’s likely stance): The government fears that allowing embryo donation could lead to a “black market” for high-quality embryos or complicated legal disputes over “biological vs. legal” parenthood.

C. The “Legislative Oversight”:

• Advocates argue this is a gap in the law. When the Act was drafted, the focus was on preventing commercial surrogacy and organ-like trafficking of gametes. In the process, the “altruistic” donation of surplus embryos was accidentally grouped into the ban.

International Comparison:

• UK & USA: Allow “Embryo Donation/Adoption.” It is treated as a form of property transfer or a pre-birth adoption process.
• Italy & Germany: Have stricter laws where embryos are granted “special moral status,” making their destruction or donation highly regulated or restricted to protect “potential life.”