A bipartisan group of legislators has introduced a bill to the Upper House that aims to establish regulatory guidelines for fertility treatments involving sperm and eggs donated by third parties.

The proposed "specific assisted reproductive technology bill" mandates that the supply, brokerage and administration of donated sperm and eggs be managed exclusively by institutions certified and authorized by the government.

Additionally, all donor information will be securely stored at the National Center for Child Health and Development, ensuring both privacy and accessibility as stipulated by the bill.

A central aspect of the legislative initiative is addressing the "right to know their origins" for individuals conceived via donor gametes, which pertains to their access to information about anonymous donors.

The bill stipulates that upon reaching adulthood, these individuals are entitled to access non-identifying information about their biological parents, such as height and blood type.

Additionally, they have the right to request more detailed personal information. However, this personal data will only be disclosed with the express consent of the donor.

Compared to a preliminary draft introduced by the parliamentary league three years earlier, the bill now enables access to non-identifying information but stops short of fully guaranteeing donor-conceived individuals' right to their genetic identity.

An organization representing these individuals has voiced strong objections, stating, "It is unjust that although the right to know one's genetic origins belongs to the children, the exercise of this right remains under the control of the providers.”

In Japan, the practice of artificial insemination using sperm from anonymous donors started shortly after World War II, resulting in more than 10,000 births.

These donor-conceived individuals have not been given legal access to information about their donors, and often, they are not even informed about their origins by their parents.

Globally, a growing number of countries have progressively enshrined these rights into law, recognizing the importance of such measures—a stance also supported by editorials in The Asahi Shimbun.

More than two decades have passed since a subcommittee of the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare’s Health Science Council issued a report in 2003 advocating for legislation to regulate assisted reproduction.

Given the prolonged neglect of this issue, the recent submission of a bill that mandates centralized management of donor information and requires the legal parents to make efforts to inform their donor-conceived children represents progress.

However, this proposed system, while a step in the right direction, remains inadequate and falls short of earning our endorsement.

As outlined in the 2003 report, the bill restricts government-sanctioned assisted reproduction procedures to legally married couples. This policy is problematic given the increasing social acceptance of same-sex marriage and the rights of sexual minorities.

Critics argue that this exclusion of unmarried and same-sex couples from receiving sperm or egg donations from government-certified institutions could lead to a rise in risky private transactions, highlighting significant gaps in equitable access to reproductive technologies.

Some members of the parliamentary league that proposed the bill advocated for including same-sex couples within its scope.

However, this suggestion was not adopted, citing concerns that it might destabilize the legal status of children.

While it's crucial to prioritize children's welfare and legal status, the real issue lies in the lack of a thorough evaluation of how to provide fertility treatments to same-sex couples who desire them, and what steps can be taken to ensure that children's legal status remains stable.

This issue deeply relates to the definition of a family, making it inappropriate for a single group of lawmakers to rush decisions on such crucial matters independently.

Instead, comprehensive debates on these fundamental issues should first take place within the Diet to ensure a well-rounded and inclusive legislative process.

--The Asahi Shimbun, March 4