Embryologists’ perspective on medical, legal, and ethical frameworks in assisted reproductive technologies in India: A narrative review

Abstract

Reproductive medicine has been transformed by assisted reproductive technologies (ART), providing multiple options for infertile couples to conceive biological offspring. The medical and legal frameworks, governing the practice of embryologists in ART, focus on the ethical and safe handling of gametes and embryos. Embryologists play a crucial role in the success of ART procedures, requiring technical expertise and a thorough understanding of legal and ethical considerations. The importance of quality control, safety protocols, and sterility in ART laboratories is essential to ensure optimal embryo development and patient well-being. The legal responsibilities of an embryologist under the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021 in India are required. This review emphasizes the importance of record-keeping, patient confidentiality, informed consent, and adherence to legal and ethical standards to minimize the risk of malpractice claims. Overall, this narrative review provides a detailed overview of the medical, legal, and ethical frameworks governing embryologists’ practice in ART, underscoring the significance of responsible and ethical conduct in this rapidly advancing field.

Keywords

Bioethics / Legislation / Assisted reproductive technologies / Ethical dilemmas / Human rights and legal issues of health

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no competing interests.

Funding

The study receives no extramural funding.

Authors’ contributions

Pavantej Macha contributed to the conception and design of the study, as well as the drafting and revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content. Rachana Reddy provided expertise in bioethics, contributing to the legal and ethical analysis and interpretation of data, as well as reviewing the manuscript for accuracy. Avanti Kalbande contributed to the clinical aspects of assisted reproductive technologies, providing insights into the practical implications of medical and ethical guidelines, and reviewing the manuscript for clinical relevance. Vinod Kumar provided expertise in legal frameworks, contributed to the analysis of regulatory policies governing assisted reproductive technologies in India, and ensured the legal accuracy of the manuscript.

Publisher’s Note

The Publisher of the Journal remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References

[1] Graham ME, Jelin A, Hoon AH, Wilms Floet AM, Levey E, Graham EM. Assisted reproductive technology: Short- and long-term outcomes. Dev Med Child Neurol 2023; 65(1):38-49.

[2] Jamwal VDS, Yadav AK. The Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021: A step in the right direction. Indian J Community Med 2023; 48(1):4-6. doi: 10.4103/ijcm.ijcm_169_22.

[3] Mapari SA, Shrivastava D, Bedi GN, Pradeep U, Gupta A, Kasat PR, et al. Revolutionizing reproduction: The impact of robotics and artificial intelligence (AI) in assisted reproductive technology: A comprehensive review. Cureus 2024; 16(6):e63072. doi: 10.7759/cureus.63072.

[4] Barnes T, Abakah-Nkrumah G, Oboshie Anim-Boamah O, Sefogah PE. Legal and ethical challenges in assisted reproductive technology practice in Ghana. GMJ 2024; 58(1):78-85.

[5] Tank J, Kotiswaran P, Tank P, Tank D, Tank J. Voices from health care providers: Assessing the impact of the Indian Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021 on the practice of IVF in India. J Obstet Gynecol India 2023; 73(4):301-308.

[6] Di Trani M, Spoletini R, Renzi A, Greco F, Scaravelli G. Psychologists’ representations about their professional functions within assisted reproductive multidisciplinary teams. Prof Psychol Res Pract 2021; 52(3):299-307.

[7] Holter H, Gejervall A, Borg K, Sandin‐Bojö A, Wikland M, Wilde‐Larsson B, et al. In vitro fertilization healthcare professionals generally underestimate patients’ satisfaction with quality of care. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2017; 96(3):302-312.

[8] Iltis AS, Koster G, Reeves E, Matthews KRW. Ethical, legal, regulatory, and policy issues concerning embryoids: A systematic review of the literature. Stem Cell Res Ther 2023; 14(1):209. doi: 10.1186/s13287-02303448-8.

[9] Shapiro H, Brown TJ, Chronis-Brown P, Hamilton GS, Bentley DC, Kandel R, et al. Education of the clinical embryology laboratory professional: Development of a novel program delivered in a laboratory medicine department. F S Rep 2023; 4(3):262-269.

[10] Sciorio R, Aiello R, Janssens R. Considerations on staffing levels for a modern assisted reproductive laboratory. JBRA Assist Reprod 2023; 27(1):120-130. doi: 10.5935/1518-0557.20220048.

[11] Indian Kanoon. Discussion on the motion for considertion of the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Bill, 2020 (Discussion Concluded and Bill Passed). [Online] Available from:https://indiankanoon.org/doc/197742569/ [Accessed 16 October 2024].

[12] Malina A, Pooley J. Psychological consequences of IVF fertilization-Review of research. Ann Agric Environ Med 2017; 24(4):554-558.

[13] Taebi M, Bahrami R, Bagheri-Lankarani N, Shahriari M. Ethical challenges of embryo donation in embryo donors and recipients. Iran J Nurs Midwifery Res 2018; 23(1):36.

[14] Malhotra J, Malhotra K, Talwar P, Kannan P, Singh P, Kumar Y, et al. ISAR consensus guidelines on safety and ethical practices in in vitro fertilization clinics. J Hum Reprod Sci 2021; 14(5):48.

[15] Mishra R, Thakral S. Legal subtleties of the Indian Assisted Reproductive Technology Act of 2021. Natl Med J India 2024; 37:272-274. doi: 10.25259/NMJI_785_2023.

[16] Rivron NC, Martinez Arias A, Pera MF, Moris N, M’hamdi HI. An ethical framework for human embryology with embryo models. Cell 2023; 186(17):3548-3557.

[17] Simon C, Campbell A, Gardner DK, Meseguer M, Miller KA, Montag M, et al. In vitro fertilization and andrology laboratories in 2030. Fertil Steril 2021; 116(1):2-3.

[18] Dimitriadis I, Zaninovic N, Badiola AC, Bormann CL. Artificial intelligence in the embryology laboratory: A review. Reprod Biomed Online 2022; 44(3):435-448.

[19] Liu KE, Hartman M, Hartman A, Luo ZC, Mahutte N. The impact of a thin endometrial lining on fresh and frozen-thaw IVF outcomes: An analysis of over 40 000 embryo transfers. Hum Reprod 2018; 33(10):1883-1888.

[20] Racowsky C. Training and recognition of clinical embryologists as professionals-now, but what does the future hold? F S Rep 2023; 4(3):254-255.

[21] Simopoulou M, Sfakianoudis K, Giannelou P, Rapani A, Maziotis E, Tsioulou P, et al. Discarding IVF embryos: Reporting on global practices. J Assist Reprod Genet 2019; 36(12):2447-2457.

[22] Maggiulli R, Cimadomo D, Fabozzi G, Papini L, Dovere L, Ubaldi FM, et al. The effect of ICSI-related procedural timings and operators on the outcome. Hum Reprod 2020; 35(1):32-43.

[23] Magli MC, Van Den Abbeel E, Lundin K, Royere D, Van Der Elst J, Gianaroli L, et al. Revised guidelines for good practice in IVF laboratories. Hum Reprod 2008; 23(6):1253-1262.

[24] Farlie F, Palmer GA, Cohen J, Calcagni C, Gorbunova A, Lawford Davies J, et al. Sustainability in the IVF laboratory: Recommendations of an expert panel. Reprod Biomed Online 2024; 48(1):103600.

[25] Borges ED, Berteli TS, Reis TF, Silva AS, Vireque AA. Microbial contamination in assisted reproductive technology: Source, prevalence, and cost. J Assist Reprod Genet 2020; 37(1):53-61.

[26] Jindal SK, Rawlins RG, Muller CH, Drobnis EZ. Guidelines for risk reduction when handling gametes from infectious patients seeking assisted reproductive technologies. Reprod Biomed Online 2016; 33(2):121-130.

[27] Mortimer D, Cohen J, Mortimer ST, Fawzy M, McCulloh DH, Morbeck DE, et al. Cairo consensus on the IVF laboratory environment and air quality: Report of an expert meeting. Reprod Biomed Online 2018; 36(6):658-674.

[28] Malhotra J, Malhotra K, Talwar P, Kannan P, Singh P, Kumar Y, et al. ISAR consensus guidelines on safety and ethical practices in in vitro fertilization clinics. J Hum Reprod Sci 2021; 14(Suppl 1):S48-S68.

[29] Considerations regarding embryo culture conditions: From media to epigenetics. In Vivo 2018; 32(3):451-460. doi: 10.21873/invivo.11261.

[30] Zander-Fox D, Lam K, Pacella-Ince L, Tully C, Hamilton H, Hiraoka K, et al. PIEZO-ICSI increases fertilization rates compared with standard ICSI: A prospective cohort study. Reprod Biomed Online 2021; 43(3):404-412.

[31] Sfakianoudis K, Maziotis E, Karantzali E, Kokkini G, Grigoriadis S, Pantou A, et al. Molecular drivers of developmental arrest in the human preimplantation embryo: A systematic review and critical analysis leading to mapping future research. IJMS 2021; 22(15):8353.

[32] Kashyap S, Tripathi P. The Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021: A critique. Asian Bioeth Rev 2022; 15(1):5-18. doi: 10.1007/s41649-022-00222-5.

[33] Government of India. Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021. India Code. [Online] Available from:https://www.indiacode.nic.in/handle/123456789/17031 [Accessed 16 October 2024].

[34] Wolff P, Rocha CC, Alvarenga RDLLS, Zuculo JVB, Guimarães FM, Pinheiro Neto JE, et al. Code of ethics and conduct of the Brazilian association of embryologists-PRONÚCLEO. JBRA Assist Reprod 2019; 23(1):58-61. doi: 10.5935/1518-0557.20180067.

[35] Walker JV, Premannandan H, Barrie A, Kirkman-Brown JC, Newby H. Association of reproductive and clinical scientists. Good practice in clinical embryology laboratories:Association of reproductive and clinical scientists guidelines 2024. Reprod Biomed Online 2024; 49(6):104102.

[36] Agrawal A. Medical negligence: Indian legal perspective. Ann Indian Acad Neurol 2016; 19(5):9.

[37] Indian Kanoon. Sri. Lakshmi Janardhan K S vs State of Karnataka on 29 November, 2023. [Online]https://indiankanoon.org/doc/198502482/ [Accessed 17 October 2024].

[38] Ezeome IV. Gamete donation-A review of ethical and legal issues. Afr J Reprod Health 2022; 26(3):124-135.

[39] Lal DR. The legal and ethical implications of assisted reproductive technology regulations on fertility clinics and the right of the children born out of ART. Acta Sci 2024; 7(1):124-138. doi: 10.17648/acta.scientiae.6838.

[40] Von Schondorf-Gleicher A, Mochizuki L, Orvieto R, Patrizio P, Caplan AS, Gleicher N. Revisiting selected ethical aspects of current clinical in vitro fertilization (IVF) practice. J Assist Reprod Genet 2022; 39(3):591-604.

[41] Goldman KN, Nazem T, Berkeley A, Palter S, Grifo JA. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) for monogenic disorders: The value of concurrent aneuploidy screening. J Genet Couns 2016; 25(6):1327-1337.

[42] Navarro-Sánchez L, García-Pascual C, Rubio C, Simón C. Non-invasive preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidies: An update. Reprod Biomed Online 2022; 44(5):817-828.

[43] Yang S, Xu B, Zhuang Y, Zhang Q, Li J, Fu X. Current research status and clinical applications of noninvasive preimplantation genetic testing: A review. Medicine 2024; 103(40):e39964.

[44] Gowda M, Deepthi B, Nichanahalli KS. The Assisted Reproductive Technology Act 2021-Provisions and implications. Indian Pediatr 2024; 61(7):675-681.