Mobile, Alabama – The passage of a bill in Alabama intended to protect the rights of in vitro fertilization (IVF) practices has raised concerns among legal experts. While the bill was meant to provide reassurance to fertility clinics, experts argue that it may inadvertently prevent patients from seeking damages in cases of clinic negligence or product malfunction. The new law grants criminal and civil liability protection to fertility doctors and patients, as well as shields manufacturers of goods used in the IVF process from criminal charges. However, it allows for these companies to still be sued in civil court with damages capped at the price paid for the impacted IVF cycle.
One of the main concerns raised by legal experts is the issue of whether embryos should be considered legally minor children. The Alabama Supreme Court ruled that embryos were legally considered human beings in a case where frozen embryos were dropped on the floor due to negligence. However, critics argue that the compensation for the loss of an embryo should not be limited to the cost of an IVF cycle, but should be determined by a jury.
Instances of destroyed or damaged embryos during the IVF process are not uncommon. Between 2009 and 2019, there were at least 133 lawsuits filed nationally related to these incidents. The lack of federal or state oversight in the fertility industry has contributed to these mishaps, with self-regulation by professional organizations being the predominant form of oversight. The global IVF market was valued at nearly $23 billion in 2022 and is projected to reach over $39 billion in the next decade.
The impact of the new Alabama law has already prompted some major fertility clinics to question its provisions. The Center for Reproductive Medicine at Mobile Infirmary, the clinic involved in the lawsuit that led to the state Supreme Court ruling, has decided not to reopen until further legal clarification is obtained. Critics argue that the immunity provided to fertility clinics in cases of gross negligence, recklessness, or criminal intent is unprecedented and undermines the principle of justice for patients.
The financial costs of fertility treatments are often the least significant part of the damages faced by patients when their embryos are lost. For many, the emotional and psychological toll is immeasurable, and no amount of compensation can fully alleviate the pain. Critics of the Alabama law believe that it fails to address the full scope of the harm caused and puts a disproportionately low value on the loss of an embryo.
In conclusion, the passage of the Alabama bill aimed at protecting the interests of IVF procedures has sparked concerns among legal experts. While the law provides certain protections, it also limits patients’ ability to seek damages in cases of negligence or product malfunction. The complexities surrounding the legal status of embryos and the lack of consistent oversight in the fertility industry have contributed to the need for a more comprehensive approach. Critics argue that the new law falls short and fails to fully recognize the physical, emotional, and psychological toll on patients whose embryos are lost during the IVF process.