Reproductive Rights - Case Study Example

In this particular case IVF was implemented where donor sperm and the patient’s egg was fertilized outside the uterus and then implanted inside the body. “Since, the chances of survival of the implanted fetuses are low and since this decreases the chances of the woman becoming pregnant, patients often request that multiple embryos be transferred”( Manninen, 2011), which has also been the case with Ms. Suleman where she wanted multiple implantations. Recent studies have revealed much higher risks of cerebral palsy and malformations in babies conceived by in vitro fertilization (IVF) than in babies conceived naturally ( Bellieni & Buonocore, 2006), wherein the rate of cerebral palsy in normal children is a mere 2.

8 in 1000 births while that in IVF babies is a staggering 44.8 in 1000 births. In IVF procedures, extra embryos are produced which are not implanted and are kept frozenso that they will be available to produce additional children or for additional attempts if the first effort does not succeed (Carbone & Cahn, 2010). Nadya Suleman requested her doctor to implant all her left over embryos into her uterus. In spite of being fully aware of the health consequences she may have to face, she went ahead with the implantation and her decision was further indulged by her doctor’s judgment.

Nadya Suleman’s doctor Michael Kamrava’s license was revoked after the dark revelation that he had implanted 12 embryos in the uterus of Ms. Suleman. According to the society of Assisted Reproductive Technology, the number of embryos that needs to be implanted inside the mother’s uterus depends on her age and physical state, but Dr. Kamrava implanted about 12 embryos owing to his judgmental flaw. Ms. Suleman was only 33 at that time and 12 embryos were 6 times the permitted number for women of her age.

However, in the U.S. the autonomy granted to the patient overrides the doctor’s paternalism. The patient has full rights to accept or reject any medical advice offered. It is understandable that Ms. Suleman wanted a big family and rejected fetal reduction advice. According to many Dr. Kamrava’s actions were not ethically correct. He may have respected the patient’s autonomy but it is evident that he was faced with an ethical dilemma given the fact that IVF norms allowed the implantation of only 2 embryos.

In such cases, ideally the doctor should have stuck to the Deontology ethics because in situations of ethical dilemma, fulfillment towards another fellow being and towards society overrides the patient’s autonomy. He was well aware of Nadya Suleman’s medical history and the potential health threats posed to both Nadya and her future off springs because of HOMB, yet he gave way to Ms. Suleman’s wishes, thus he even ignored the utilitarian ethical theory. The case of Nadya Suleman instigated some people to question the regulatory role of the Government agencies in handling ART cases.

Reproductive rights are the basic human rights as well as constitutional right that every female citizen is entitled to. Since, the stringent restrictions on stem cell research and other biotechnological applications have been lifted by