India police bust embryo smuggling racket
by Michael Cook | 24 Mar 2019 |
_640_352_c1_c_c.jpg)
Indian authorities are investigating a possible embryo smuggling and surrogacy racket after nabbing a Malaysian courier at Mumbai airport earlier this month.
The alleged smuggler told police that he had transported embryos from Malaysia – where surrogacy is illegal – to the Indo Nippon IVF Clinic, run by Dr Goral Gandhi, an embryologist whose website describes her as “the best embryologist in India”.
The clinic has denied involvement in the racket and says that rival clinics may have conspired to set Dr Gandhi up.
The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) which is investigating the case suspects that other clinics may be importing embryos as well – which is illegal without a permit from the Indian Council of Medical Research. Presumably the embryos would be implanted in surrogate mothers engaged by the clinics.
Michael Cook is editor of BioEdge
This is not an appropriate venue for a discussion of my age, but I think that most readers will sympathise with my occasional interest in turning the clock back a few years. What if the hoary adage, "you're only as old as you feel", could have the force of law?
Last year, a flamboyant positivity guru tested this theory in a Dutch court by applying to have his legal age changed from 69 to 49. To no one's surprise, he lost, but the reasoning for the adverse judgement was peculiar (as reported in the media, anyway). The court declared that too much government paperwork depends upon an agreed biological age. At a time when self-identification for gender is widely accepted, this line of reasoning is surprisingly weak.
Which brings me to an intriguing article in the Journal of Medical Ethics (see below) which supports the notion of self-defining age. The author bases it on the need to prevent discrimination on the basis of age, or ageism. I wonder how the courts will respond to this argument.
Last year, a flamboyant positivity guru tested this theory in a Dutch court by applying to have his legal age changed from 69 to 49. To no one's surprise, he lost, but the reasoning for the adverse judgement was peculiar (as reported in the media, anyway). The court declared that too much government paperwork depends upon an agreed biological age. At a time when self-identification for gender is widely accepted, this line of reasoning is surprisingly weak.
Which brings me to an intriguing article in the Journal of Medical Ethics (see below) which supports the notion of self-defining age. The author bases it on the need to prevent discrimination on the basis of age, or ageism. I wonder how the courts will respond to this argument.
 Michael Cook Editor BioEdge |  |  |  |
NEWS THIS WEEK
by Michael Cook | Mar 24, 2019
Wouldn’t it stop ageism? by Michael Cook | Mar 24, 2019
Two prominent genetic-engineering sceptics say Yes by Michael Cook | Mar 24, 2019
Anti-elderly sentiment stronger amongst Flemish by Michael Cook | Mar 24, 2019
An abrupt change from years of opposition by Michael Cook | Mar 24, 2019
Bioethicists clash over whether they are ethically equivalent by Michael Cook | Mar 24, 2019
A first in US abortion wars by Michael Cook | Mar 24, 2019
IVF clinics could be importing embryos from overseas by Xavier Symons | Mar 23, 2019
Her work laid the foundation for fertility and embryology legislation in the UK. BioEdge
Level 1, 488 Botany Road, Alexandria NSW 2015 Australia
Phone: +61 2 8005 8605
Mobile: 0422-691-615
.png)
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario