Üremeye yardımcı tedavi yöntemleri ve etik sorunlar: Mümkün olan her şey ahlaki midir?

Üremeye Yardımcı Tedavi Yöntemleri (ÜYTY) çocuk sahibi olmak isteyen çiftler için tüm Dünyada yaygın olarak kullanılmaktadır. Hatta çoğu ülkede tüp bebek ile ilgili etik tartışmalar artık ÜYTY’i prosedürel olarak incelememektedir. Fakat yöntemin bu kadar sık ve yaygın uygulanması herhangi bir etik kaygı içermediği anlamına gelmemektedir. Ek olarak ÜYTY ile birlikte günümüzde anne-baba adayları çocuklarının cinsiyetini ve fiziksel özelliklerini dahi seçebilmekte; eş cinsel bireyler ya da bekâr kadınlar tek başına, çocuk sahibi olabilmektedir. Mitokondri değiştirme terapileri, gamet ve embriyo bağışı ve taşıyıcı annelik gibi pek çok farklı uygulama ÜYTY ile mümkün olmaktadır. Peki tıbbi ve teknik olarak mümkün olan her şeyi yapabilir miyiz? İnsanı merkeze koyan, özellikle de yeni teknolojiler ile ilgili bir uygulamada yargıya varmadan önce iki temel soru muhakkak sorulmalıdır: “Herkes bu uygulamayı yaparsa ne olur?” ve “bu uygulama nelere yol açar?”. Böylece özel bir alan ile ilgili olarak insanoğluna ahlaki gelen bir uygulamanın genele yayılması durumunda nelere yol açabileceği kolaylıkla görülebilir. Sınırsız bir üreme ve çocuk sahibi olma arzusunun her koşulda hak görülmesi çocuğu ebeveynlerin nesnesi haline getirmektedir. Bu nedenle ÜYTY geliştirilirken sadece bireylerin üreme özgürlüğü ya da kendi bedeni üzerinde söz sahibi olma hakkı değil, doğacak çocuğun hakları da düşünülmelidir. Ayrıca insanı geliştirmeyi ve değiştirmeyi hedef edinen biyoteknolojiler insanlık şerefine (human dignity) ve yaradılışına saldırmaktadır. Bu makalenin amacı ÜYTY’i hem teknik açıdan hem de diğer sosyal yönleriyle etik perspektifinden tartışmaktır.

Assisted reproductive technologies and ethical issues: Is every possible thing moral?

Assisted Reproductive Technologies (ART) are widely used all over the world for couples who want to have children. Ethical debates about IVF in most countries no longer examine ART procedurally. Although IVF is used so frequently and widely, it includes some ethical concerns. In addition, with ART, parents can choose the gender and physical characteristics of their children; Homosexual individuals or single women can have children. Many different treatments such as mitochondrial replacement therapies, gamete and embryo donation, and surrogacy are possible with ART. Can we do everything that is medically and technically possible? Before making a judgment about an application that focuses on people, especially about new technologies, two basic questions must be asked: “What would happen if everyone made this application?” and “what does this practice lead to?”. In this way, we can easily see the consequences of a ethical practice in a particular field when spread to the public. Defending reproductive autonomy and the desire to have children under all conditions makes the child an object of the parents. For this reason, while developing ART, not only the reproductive freedom of individuals or the right for one to make their own decisions but also the rights of the child should be considered. In addition, biotechnologies that aim to improve and change humans attack human dignity and creation. This article aimed to discuss ART from an ethical perspective, both from a technical and social aspect.

PDF

___

1. Biggers JD. IVF and embryo transfer: historical origin and development. Reprod Biomed Online. 2012;25:118–27. [CrossRef]
2. Savulescu J. Procreative beneficence: why we should select the best children. Bioethics. 2001;15:413–26. [CrossRef]
3. Zegers-Hochschild F, Adamson GD, Dyer S, Racowsky C, de Mouzon J, Sokol R, et al. The International Glossary on Infertility and Fertility Care, 2017. Fertil Steril. 2017;108:393–406. [CrossRef]
4. Klein J, Sauer MV. Oocyte donation. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2002;16:277–91. PMID:12099663. [CrossRef]
5. Combelles CM, Orasanu B, Ginsburg ES, Racowsky C. Optimum number of embryos to transfer in women more than 40 years of age undergoing treatment with assisted reproductive technologies. Fertil Steril. 2005;84:1637–42. [CrossRef]
6. Practice Committees of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine and the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. The use of preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A): a committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2018;109:429–36. [CrossRef]
7. Edwards RG. In vitro fertilization: past and future. Ann Biol Clin (Paris). 1987;45:321–9. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih. gov/3310753/
8. Rowlands M. Animals that act for moral reasons. Beauchamp TL, Frey RG, eds. The Oxford Handbook of Animal Ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2011. p. 520. [CrossRef]
9. George RP, Gómez-Lobo A. The moral status of the human embryo. Perspect Biol Med. 2005;48:201–10. [CrossRef]
10. Nicolas P, Etoc F, Brivanlou AH. The ethics of human-embryoids model: a call for consistency. J Mol Med (Berl). 2021;99:569–79. [CrossRef]
11. Barretto VP, Lauxen ECU. The beginning of human life: ethical and legal perspectives in the context of biotechnological progress. Cad Saude Publica. 2017;33:e00071816. [CrossRef]
12. Smith B, Brogaard B. Sixteen days. J Med Philos. 2003;28:45–78. [CrossRef]
13. Lee P, George R. Human-Embryo Liberation: A Reply to Peter Singer. National Review Online. 25 January 2006. https://www. nationalreview.com/2006/01/human-embryo-liberation-patricklee-robert-p-george/
14. Morris J. Substance ontology cannot determine the moral status of embryos. J Med Philos. 2012;37:331–50. [CrossRef]
15. Stern JE, Goldman MB, Hatasaka H, MacKenzie TA, Surrey ES, Racowsky C, et al. Optimizing the number of cleavage stage embryos to transfer on day 3 in women 38 years of age and older: a Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology database study. Fertil Steril. 2009;91:767–76. [CrossRef]
16. Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine and the Practice Committee for the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technologies. Guidance on the limits to the number of embryos to transfer: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2021;116:651–54. [CrossRef]
17. Gurmankin AD, Sisti D, Caplan AL. Embryo disposal practices in IVF clinics in the United States. Politics Life Sci. 2003;22:4–8. [CrossRef]
18. Gleicher N, Caplan AL. An alternative proposal to the destruction of abandoned human embryos. Nat Biotechnol. 2018;36:139–41. [CrossRef]
19. Sturcke J, McVeigh K. Woman loses final embryos appeal. The Guardian. 10 April 2007. https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/ apr/10/health.humanrights
20. Swedish National Council on Medical Ethics. Assisted reproduction-ethical aspects (Summary of a re-port). February 2013. https://www.smer.se/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/ Slutversion-sammanfattning-eng-Assisted-reproduction.pdf
21. Lee P, Tollefsen C, George RP. The ontological status of embryos: a reply to Jason Morris. J Med Philos. 2014;39:483–504. [CrossRef]
22. Tucker M, Morton P, Liebermann J. Human oocyte cryopreservation: a valid alternative to embryo cryopreservation? Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2004;113 Suppl 1:S24-7. [CrossRef]
23. Luke B, Brown MB. Maternal morbidity and infant death in twin vs triplet and quadruplet pregnancies. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008;198:401.e1–10. [CrossRef]
24. Legendre CM, Moutel G, Drouin R, Favre R, Bouffard C. Differences between selective termination of pregnancy and fetal reduction in multiple pregnancy: a narrative review. Reprod Biomed Online. 2013;26:542–54. [CrossRef]
25. Pennings G. Selective termination, fetal reduction and analogical reasoning. Reprod Biomed Online. 2013;26:525–7. [CrossRef]
26. Dondorp W, de Wert G. Refining the ethics of preimplantation genetic diagnosis: A plea for contextualized proportionality. Bioethics. 2019;33:294–301. [CrossRef]
27. Braude P, Pickering S, Flinter F, Ogilvie CM. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Nat Rev Genet. 2002;3:941–53. [CrossRef]
28. Cyranoski D. What CRISPR-baby prison sentences mean for research. Nature. 2020;577:154–5. [CrossRef]
29. ESHRE Task Force on Ethics and Law. III. Gamete and embryo donation. Hum Reprod. 2002;17:1407–8. [CrossRef]
30. Huele EH, Kool EM, Bos AME, Fauser BCJM, Bredenoord AL. The ethics of embryo donation: what are the moral similarities and differences of surplus embryo donation and double gamete donation? Hum Reprod. 2020;35:2171–8. [CrossRef]
31. Daniels K, Lalos O. The Swedish insemination act and the availability of donors. Hum Reprod. 1995;10:1871–4. [CrossRef]
32. Turan U. Sperm kardeşliği. Hürriyet. 17 Mayıs 2009. https://www. hurriyet.com.tr/dunya/sperm-kardesligi-11661564
33. Arocho R, Lozano EB, Halpern CT. Estimates of donated sperm use in the United States: National Survey of Family Growth 1995- 2017. Fertil Steril. 2019;112:718–23. [CrossRef]
34. Gesetz zum Schutz von Embryonen. Act for Protection of Embryos (The Embryo Protection Act). Federal Law Gazette, Part I, No. 69. 19th December 1990. https://www.rki.de/ SharedDocs/Gesetzestexte/Embryonenschutzgesetz_englisch. pdf?__blob=publicationFile#:~:text=(1)%20Anyone%20who%20 disposes%20of,three%20years%20or%20a%20fine
35. Zeiler K, Malmquist A. Lesbian shared biological motherhood: the ethics of IVF with reception of oocytes from partner. Med Health Care Philos. 2014;17:347–55. [CrossRef]
36. Di Nucci E. IVF, same-sex couples and the value of biological ties. J Med Ethics. 2016;42:784–7. [CrossRef]
37. Velleman J. Family history. Philosophical papers. 2005;34:357–78. [CrossRef]
38. Busardò FP, Gulino M, Napoletano S, Zaami S, Frati P. The evolution of legislation in the field of medically assisted reproduction and embryo stem cell research in European union members. Biomed Res Int. 2014;2014:307160. [CrossRef]
39. Ponniah K. In search of surrogates, foreign couples descend on Ukraine. BBC News. 13 February 2018. https://www.bbc.com/ news/world-europe-42845602
40. Anu, Kumar P, Inder D, Sharma N. Surrogacy and women’s right to health in India: issues and perspective. Indian J Public Health. 2013;57:65–70. [CrossRef]
41. Castro RJ. Mitochondrial replacement therapy: the UK and US regulatory landscapes. J Law Biosci. 2016;3:726–35. [CrossRef]
42. Murdoch A. IVF and the prevention of mitochondrial DNA disease: the moral issues. BioNews. 3 May 2011. https://www. bionews.org.uk/page_92949
43. Saxena N, Taneja N, Shome P, Mani S. Mitochondrial Donation: A Boon or Curse for the Treatment of Incurable Mitochondrial Diseases. J Hum Reprod Sci. 2018;11:3–9. [CrossRef]
44. Baylis F, Robert J. Radical rupture: Exploring biological sequelae of volitional inheritable genetic modification. In: Rasko J, O’Sullivan G, Ankeny R, editors. The Ethics of Inheritable Genetic Modification: A Dividing Line?. Cambridge University Press; 2006. p. 131–48. [CrossRef]
45. Warnock DM. Report of the committee of inquiry into human fertilisation and embryology. London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, 1984. https://www.hfea.gov.uk/media/2608/warnockreport-of-the-committee-of-inquiry-into-human-fertilisation-andembryology-1984.pdf
46. Batur A. Sperm bankası kârlı yatırım oldu, hedefi 7 milyar dolara çıkardı. Hurriyet. 6 Mayıs 2012. https://www.hurriyet. com.tr/ekonomi/sperm-bankasi-k-rli-yatirim-oldu-hedefi-7- milyar-dolara-cikardi-20491210#:~:text=D%C3%BCnyada%20 5 % 2 0 m i l y a r % 2 0 d o l a r l % C 4 % B 1 k % 2 0 b%C3%BCy%C3%BCkl%C3%BC%C4%9Fe,te%207%20 milyar%20dolara%20ula%C5%9Facak