The Legal and Ethical Debates in Embryo Selection

  • Pin Lean Lau


This chapter calls for a reflection on the legal and ethical aspects of embryo selection in reproduction, tracing the beginnings of the global problems of infertility and the brief advent of ARTs and other forms of prenatal testing technologies into the reproductive landscape. I surmise in this chapter that the quest for bearing a child free of diseases has led to the concept of perfection, and why reproductive technologies like PGS and PGD have gained increasing importance. In highlighting the regulatory or legal pronouncements that govern PGS and PGD in the selected jurisdictions for the book, I identify the main debates that dominate the discourse of embryo selection and potential genetic interventions that have, and shall continue to shape the framework of regulation in the various jurisdictions. These debates have been categorized into the political and socio-legal or legal debates; the religious and cultural debates; and the ethical and philosophical debates.


  1. Agar N (1998) Liberal eugenics. Public Aff Q 12:137Google Scholar
  2. Ahmad N, Lilienthal G, Hussain M (2016) Law of assisted reproductive surrogacy in Malaysia: a critical overview. Commonw Law Bull 42:355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Committee on Ethics (2007) ACOG Committee Opinion No. 360: sex selection. Obstet Gynecol 109:475–478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. American Society for Reproductive Medicine (2015) Assisted reproductive technology- a guide for patients.
  5. American Society for Reproductive Medicine, Ethics Committee (2013) Use of preimplantation genetic diagnosis for serious adult onset conditions: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril 100:54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. American Society for Reproductive Medicine, Ethics Committee (2015) Use of reproductive technology for sex selection for nonmedical reasons. Fertil Steril 103:1418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Andrews LB, Elster N (2000) Regulating reproductive technologies. J Legal Med 21:35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Assisted Reproductive Technology Act [NSW] 2007 (No 69) 43Google Scholar
  9. Assisted Reproductive Technology Amendment Bill [NSW] 2016 17Google Scholar
  10. Assisted Reproductive Treatment Act [SA] 1988 14Google Scholar
  11. Assisted Reproductive Treatment Act [VIC] 2008 (No 76)Google Scholar
  12. Assisted Reproductive Treatment Regulations [SA] 2010 4Google Scholar
  13. Australian Associated Press (20 February 2015) Thailand bans commercial surrogacy | World News, The Guardian.
  14. Bayefsky M (2015) The regulatory gap for preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Hastings Center Rep 45:7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Bayefsky M (2016) Comparative preimplantation genetic diagnosis policy in Europe and the USA and its implications for reproductive tourism. Reprod Biomed Soc Online 3:41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Bayefsky M, Jennings B (2015) Regulating preimplantation genetic diagnosis in the United States: the limits of unlimited selection. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Belluck P (4 August 2017) Gene editing for “Designer Babies”? Highly unlikely, scientists say. The New York Times.
  18. Binsaleh S, Lo KC (2007) Varicocelectomy: microsurgical inguinal varicocelectomy is the treatment of choice. Can Urol Assoc J 1:277Google Scholar
  19. Botkin JR (1998) Ethical issues and practical problems in preimplantation genetic diagnosis. J Law Med Ethics 26:17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Boyle RJ, Savulescu J (2001) Ethics of using preimplantation genetic diagnosis to select a stem cell donor for an existing person. Br Med J 323:1240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Brezina PR, Zhao Y (2012) The ethical, legal, and social issues impacted by modern assisted reproductive technologies. Obstet Gynecol Int 2012:1–7. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Brezina PR, Ke RW, Kutteh WH (2013) Preimplantation genetic screening: a practical guide. Clin Med Insights Reprod Health 7:37Google Scholar
  23. Buchitchon S (2016) The Protection of Children Born from Assisted Reproductive Technology Act 2015: scientific advances, ethics and concerns over the use of human embryo. Adv Sci Lett 22:1610CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927) (Justia Law)
  25. Caamano JM (2016) International, commercial, gestational surrogacy through the eyes of children born to surrogates in Thailand: a cry for legal attention. Boston Univ Law Rev 96:37Google Scholar
  26. Callahan S (2009) The ethical challenges of the new reproductive technologies. In: Morrison EE (ed) Health care ethics: critical issues for the 21st century, 2nd edn. Jones and Bartlett Publishers, BurlingtonGoogle Scholar
  27. Chatterjee A (2004) Cosmetic neurology the controversy over enhancing movement, mentation, and mood. Neurology 63:968CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Chial H (2008) Rare genetic disorders: learning about genetic disease through gene mapping, SNPs, and microarray data. Nat Educ 1:192Google Scholar
  29. Cohen IG (2014) What (If Anything) is wrong with human enhancement? What (If Anything) is right with it? Tulsa Law Rev 49:645Google Scholar
  30. Cordelia T (2004) Pre-implantation testing and the protection of the savior sibling. Deakin Law Rev 5:121Google Scholar
  31. Crockin SL (2005) Reproduction, genetics and the law. Reprod BioMed Online 10:692CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Deonandan R (2015) Recent trends in reproductive tourism and international surrogacy: ethical considerations and challenges for policy. Risk Manag Healthcare Policy 8:111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Department of Health, UK (9 November 2007) Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 - an Illustrative Text.
  34. Dudgeon MR, Inhorn MC (2004) Men’s influences on women’s reproductive health: medical anthropological perspectives. Soc Sci Med 59:1379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ettorre E (2000) Reproductive genetics, gender and the body: “Please Doctor, May I Have a Normal Baby?”. Sociology 34:403Google Scholar
  36. Etuk SJ (2009) Reproductive health: global infertility trend. Niger J Physiol Sci 24:85Google Scholar
  37. Farrell P (20 January 2015) Baby Gammy, Born into Thai Surrogacy Scandal, Granted Australian Citizenship | Australia News, The Guardian.
  38. Feikert C (30 April 2012) Sex selection & abortion: Australia. Library of Congress.
  39. Foucault M (1963) Naissance de La Clinique Une Archéologie Du Regard Médical. Presses Universitaires de France, ParisGoogle Scholar
  40. Foucault M (1976) The history of sexuality Volume I: an introduction. Pantheon Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  41. Foucault M (1977) Discipline and punish: the birth of the prison. Vintage Books, Random House, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  42. Gavaghan C (2007) Defending the genetic supermarket: the law and ethics of selecting the next generation. Routledge-Cavendish, AbingdonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Gleicher N, Orvieto R (2017) Is the hypothesis of preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) still supportable? A review. J Ovarian Res 10:21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Gleicher N, Kushnir VA, Barad DH (2014) Preimplantation Genetic Screening (PGS) still in search of a clinical application: a systematic review. Reprod Biol Endocrinol 12:22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Gleicher N et al (2016) Accuracy of Preimplantation Genetic Screening (PGS) is compromised by degree of mosaicism of human embryos. Reprod Biol Endocrinol 14:54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Goslinga-Roy GM (2000) Body boundaries, fiction of the female self: an ethnographic perspective on power, feminism, and the reproductive technologies. Fem Stud 26:113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Gozzetti A, Le Beau MM (2000) Fluorescence in situ hybridization: uses and limitations. Semin Hematol 37:320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Gregg AR (2016) Noninvasive prenatal screening for fetal aneuploidy, 2016 update: a position statement of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics. Genet Med 18:10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Gribble J, Bremner J (26 November 2012) The challenge of attaining the demographic dividend. Population Reference Bureau (PRB).
  50. Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965) (Justia Law)
  51. Haraway DJ (2000) A Cyborg Manifesto: science, technology, and socialist-feminism in the late twentieth century. In: Badmington N (ed) Posthumanism. Macmillan Education, LondonGoogle Scholar
  52. Harryono M et al (2006) Thailand medical tourism cluster. Harvard Business School Microeconomics of CompetitivenessGoogle Scholar
  53. Heydarian RJ (11 May 2018) A peaceful revolution in Malaysia. Al-Jazeera.
  54. Hsu PD, Lander ES, Zhang F (2014) Development and applications of CRISPR-Cas9 for genome engineering. Cell 157:1262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Hudson KL (2006) Preimplantation genetic diagnosis: public policy and public attitudes. Fertil Steril 85:1638CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Hughes JJ (2010) Humans should be free of all biological limitations including sex. Am J Bioethics 10:15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Mitochondrial Donation) Regulations 2015Google Scholar
  58. Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 (Chapter 37) 48Google Scholar
  59. Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 (Chapter 22) 120Google Scholar
  60. Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority S and ID, ‘The HFE Act (and Other Legislation) - HFEA’ Accessed 15 Jan 2018
  61. Human Reproductive Technology Act [WA] 1991Google Scholar
  62. Human Tissues Act 1974 (Act 130) 1974 (Act 130) 9Google Scholar
  63. Hunt L (15 November 2018) Thailand’s politics heat up ahead of elusive election. The Diplomat.
  64. ICPD, ‘Policy Recommendations for the ICPD Beyond 2014: Sexual and Reproductive Health & Rights for All’
  65. Illustrative Text: Human Embryology and Fertilisation Authority Act 1990. As Amended: An Illustrative TextGoogle Scholar
  66. Inhorn MC (2007) Masculinity, reproduction, and male infertility surgery in the Middle East. J Middle East Women’s Stud 3:1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Inhorn MC (2009) Right to assisted reproductive technology: overcoming infertility in low-resource countries. Int J Gynecol Obstet 106:172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Inhorn MC (2013) Why Me? Male infertility and responsibility in the Middle East. Men Masculinities 16:49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Inhorn MC, Birenbaum-Carmeli D (2008) Assisted reproductive technologies and culture change. Ann Rev Anthropol 3:177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Inhorn MC, Patrizio P (2015) Infertility around the globe: new thinking on gender, reproductive technologies and global movements in the 21st century. Hum Reprod Update 21:411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Jaede M (2017) The concept of the common good. Working Paper, University of Edinburgh, p 18Google Scholar
  72. Jensen EM (2012) The individual mandate, taxation, and the constitution. J Tax Invest 30:31Google Scholar
  73. Juslaws & Consult, ‘Unofficial Translation- Act Providing for the Protection for Children Born Through Assisted Reproductive Technologies’Google Scholar
  74. Kamel RMA (2013) Assisted reproductive technology after the birth of Louise Brown. Gynecol Obstet 3:156. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Kass L (1997) The wisdom of repugnance. The New Republic 17Google Scholar
  76. Knowles LP, Kaebnick GE (eds) (2007) Reprogenetics: law, policy and ethical issues. John Hopkins University Press, BaltimoreGoogle Scholar
  77. Lau PL (2018) The Genius & The Imbecile: disentangling the “Legal” framework of autonomy in modern liberal eugenics, from non-therapeutic gene enhancement use in gene editing technologies. In: Current debates in international relations and law, vol 4. IJOPEC, LondonGoogle Scholar
  78. Liu CK (2007) “Saviour Siblings”? The distinction between PGD with HLA tissue typing and preimplantation HLA tissue typing: winner of the Max Charlesworth Prize Essay 2006. J Bioeth Inq 4:65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Ly KD, Agarwal A, Nagy ZP (2011) Preimplantation genetic screening: does it help or hinder IVF treatment and what is the role of the embryo? J Assist Reprod Genet 28:833CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Malaysian Medical Council (14 November 2006) Guideline of the Malaysian Medical Council MMC Guideline 003/2006 assisted reproductionGoogle Scholar
  81. Metzl JF (10 October 2014) The genetics epidemic. Foreign Affairs. Accessed 14 Jan 2017
  82. Ministry of Health Malaysia, Medical Development Division (October 2012) Standards for assisted reproductive technology facility - embryology laboratory and operation theatreGoogle Scholar
  83. Munné S et al (1994) Chromosome Mosaicism in human embryos. Biol Reprod 51:373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. NaRanong A, NaRanong V (2011) The effects of medical tourism: Thailand’s experience. Bull World Health Org 89:336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. National Health and Medical Research Council (2017) Ethical guidelines on the use of assisted reproductive technology in clinical practice and research. Australian Government NHMRC, CanberraGoogle Scholar
  86. Natipodhi P (2014) Practice of sex selection in Asian Region. Working Paper Series Asian Law InstituteGoogle Scholar
  87. Norwitz ER, Levy B (2013) Noninvasive prenatal testing: the future is now. Rev Obstet Gynecol 6:48Google Scholar
  88. Pardes A (14 January 2016) How commercial surrogacy became a massive international business. Vice.
  89. Parliament of Malaysia, ‘Official Portal of The Parliament of Malaysia’
  90. Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992) (Justia Law)
  91. Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction Act 2002 2016 (No 144, 2002)Google Scholar
  92. Protection for Children Born Through Assisted Reproductive Technologies Act 2015 (167/2553)Google Scholar
  93. Research Involving Human Embryos Act 2002 2016 (No 145, 2002)Google Scholar
  94. Rhode H (15 June 2012) Can Muslims reopen the gates of Ijtihad? Gatestone Institute.
  95. Riggan K (31 December 2009) G12 country regulations of assisted reproductive technologies. The Centre for Bioethics and Human Dignity.
  96. Robertson JA (2003) Extending preimplantation genetic diagnosis: the ethical debate: ethical issues in new uses of preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Hum Reprod 18:465CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) (Justia Law)
  98. Sandberg R (2016) The failure of legal pluralism. Eccles Law J 18:137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Sandel M (2004) The case against perfection. Atlantic Monthly 293:51Google Scholar
  100. Sándor J (2015) The ethical and legal analysis of embryo preimplantation testing policies in Europe. In: Sills ES (ed) Screening the single euploid embryo. Springer International Publishing, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  101. Sheehan M (2009) Making sense of the immorality of Unnaturalness. Camb Q Healthc Ethics 18:177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Sholley JB (1951) Constitution of the United States of America, Cases on Constitutional Law. Bobbs-MerrillGoogle Scholar
  103. Silver LM (2000) Reprogenetics: third millennium speculation: the consequences for humanity when reproductive biology and genetics are combined. EMBO Rep 1:375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Singer P (2016) The human genome and the genetic supermarket. In: Ethics in the real world: 82 brief essays on things that matter. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  105. Skinner v. Oklahoma Ex Rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535 (1942) (Justia Law)
  106. Smith MK (2013) The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008: restrictions on the creation of “Saviour Siblings” and the relevance of the harm principle. New Genet Soc 32:154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Smith J (3 August 2014) Mother Country: the harrowing truth behind Thai “fertility Tourism”. The Independent.
  108. Stasi A (2015) Maternal surrogacy and reproductive tourism in Thailand: a call for legal enforcement. Ubon Ratchathani Law J 8:17–36Google Scholar
  109. Strategy and Information Directorate Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, ‘The HFE Act (and Other Legislation) - HFEA’
  110. Supiot A (2007) Homo Juridicus: on the anthropological function of the law. Verso, BrooklynGoogle Scholar
  111. Taranto S (22 January 2018) How abortion became the single most important litmus test in American Politics. The Washington Post.
  112. Thai Law Forum, ‘Thailand Medical Council Regulations on Surrogacy and IVF | Thailand Law Forum’
  113. The Nation (28 November 2014) Thailand Portal ‘Commercial Surrogacy Bill Passes First Reading with 177 to 2 Votes’
  114. The Star, ‘Pakatan Harapan 100 Days’
  115. Thompson C (2016) IVF global histories, USA: between rock and a marketplace. Reprod Biomed Soc Online 2:128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. TMC Fertility Centre (21 February 2013) ‘Home’ (TMC Fertility Centre)
  117. TMC Fertility Centre (23 March 2015) ‘Pre-Implantation Genetic Diagnosis (PGD)’ (TMC Fertility Centre)
  118. Turriziani JV (2014) Designer babies: the need for regulation on the quest for perfection. Law School Student Scholarship 595.
  119. United Nations, Development Policy and Analysis Division, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, ‘Country Classification- Data Sources, Country Classification and Aggregation Methodology’ (United Nations Secretariat)
  120. US National Library of Medicine, Genetics Home Reference, ‘What Are the Different Ways in Which a Genetic Condition Can Be Inherited?’ (Genetics Home Reference)
  121. Weltgesundheitsorganisation (ed) (2005) Sexually transmitted and other reproductive tract infections: a guide to essential practiceGoogle Scholar
  122. Whittaker A, Speier A (2010) “Cycling Overseas”: care, commodification, and stratification in cross-border reproductive travel. Med Anthropol 29:363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. Winslow ER, Kodner IJ (2004) Ethics and genetic testing. Semin Colon Rectal Surg 15:186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  124. World Health Organization, ‘WHO | Infertility Is a Global Public Health Issue’ (WHO)
  125. Yuen M (29 November 2015) Act to ensure country has regulations on artificial reproduction – Nation. The Star.
  126. Zakhiri M et al (2016) Legal position of Fatwa: observations from selected jurisdictions. Seminar on Law and Society (SOLAS 2016), School of Law, Universiti Utara MalaysiaGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pin Lean Lau
    • 1
  1. 1.Central European UniversityBudapestHungary

Personalised recommendations