A proposal put forth by the Japan Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology should prompt the government to start seriously tackling important policy challenges related to reproductive medicine that have been ignored for far too long.

The society has called for establishing a “public institution” to coordinate and manage the government’s efforts to deal with various bioethics issues, including questions concerning assisted reproductive medicine.

Japan has been slow to enact legislation to govern this area of medical research and business. Instead, the society’s views and guidelines have served as de facto regulations.

But expected further progress in research and technology in the field and growth of the baby-making business driven by the progress will create challenges that are beyond the ability of the academic society. The government should take the organization’s proposal seriously and immediately start considering its proposal.

The society envisions two key roles for the proposed public entity. First, the body should engage in continuous debate on the future direction of reproductive medicine and perinatal care, according to the society’s proposal.

It should also deal with such practical tasks as certifying the qualifications of doctors and medical institutions involved in this area, investigations of actual practices and operations, management of personal information and providing counseling services, the society suggested.

The need for such an organization was already pointed out by a working group of a health ministry advisory council in a 2003 report. But the idea has been left in a political limbo.

When a bill drafted by lawmakers to establish legal parentage for couples who conceive a child through assisted reproduction using a donated egg or sperm was enacted at the end of 2020, an additional clause called for taking “necessary measures” after considering related issues for two or so years.

But no notable move has been made since then. Clearly, both the government and the Diet have defaulted on their duty.

Asahi Shimbun editorials have repeatedly pointed out the importance of this problem. Two years ago, we called for the creation of an independent organization to debate related issues from different angles, focusing on the question of ethical restrictions on research in reproductive medicine that could lead to eugenic selection that excludes sick or disabled people.

The society’s proposal echoes our argument. The reality has come to a point where inaction is no option.

With regard to artificial insemination involving a donor’s semen, for example, there is no rule concerning how to deal with the rights of children born through this fertility treatment method to access information about their biological father.

While increased recognition of the possibility that courts might order the disclosure of sperm donors’ names in lawsuits filed by children seeking the identity of their biological father has made it difficult to find donors, there have been reports about disputes concerning sperm donations via the internet.

There are also people turning to overseas sperm banks that allow users to choose donors by examining their profiles showing their races, academic backgrounds and other information.

A growing number of people are using prenatal testing services--which involve using blood samples of pregnant women to detect any disabilities of fetuses--offered by facilities that are not certified by the society and not sufficiently equipped to provide proper counseling and support to users.

There is no effective way to stop this troubling trend.

Public awareness of the people’s right to make their own decisions concerning sex and reproduction has increased as well as understanding of sexual minorities. But there is a long list of issues that need to be addressed from the viewpoint of promoting diversity in lifestyles and protecting individuals’ human rights.

It is vital to give answers to these questions. But the work must continue to examine and debate the answers in light of progress in science and global trends. No effort must be spared to build a social consensus and find better answers with regard to delicate and complicated ethical issues related to the field.

--The Asahi Shimbun, March 5