A recent ruling by the Alabama Supreme Court that declared frozen embryos as “children” has been met with concern and uncertainty among couples seeking in-vitro fertilization (IVF) and the medical professionals who provide it.
The ruling, which stemmed from a wrongful death lawsuit brought by three couples concerning embryos destroyed at a fertility clinic, could potentially expose IVF patients and providers to criminal prosecution or civil liability for discarding or damaging any excess or unwanted embryos.
This has already prompted one of the state’s leading medical facilities, the University of Alabama Birmingham, to pause its IVF services until further notice.
The hospital said in a statement that it was “saddened” by the impact of the ruling on its patients, but that it had to:
“Evaluate the potential that our patients and our physicians could be prosecuted criminally or face punitive damages for following the standard of care for IVF treatments.”
Fertility clinics in the state believe that the ruling contradicts the established medical and ethical guidelines for IVF. According to the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, the national organization that sets the standards for reproductive medicine, the Alabama Supreme Court “made a decision that flies in the face of medical reality and the needs of the citizens of Alabama.”
They went further in their released statement saying,
“In its medically and scientifically unfounded decision, the court held that a fertilized frozen egg in a fertility clinic freezer should be treated as the legal equivalent of an existent child or a fetus gestating in a womb. The eight members of the court who approved this decision may view these things as the same, but science and everyday common sense tell us they are not.”
The organization also states that patients have the right to decide the disposition of their embryos.
Some legal experts and reproductive rights advocates have also argued that the Alabama IVF ruling may be based on religious beliefs rather than scientific evidence, and that it violates the constitutional rights of women and couples to reproductive autonomy.
They warn that the ruling could have far-reaching implications for other reproductive issues, such as abortion, contraception, and stem cell research.
