The article that I
stumbled upon this week is definitely a new one for me. It deals with the
questioning of human rights and in vitro fertilization. In Costa Rica there has
been a ban on in vitro fertilization since 2000, and there has been eighteen filed
lawsuits concerning their violation of human rights. This lawsuit against Costa
Rica was filed earlier at the Washington, D.C. based Inter-American Commission
on Human Rights, and eventually it resulted in an ultimatum for Costa Rica in
2010: Either legalize in vitro fertilization or go to court. Two years later,
Costa Rica has an answer to that ultimatum: we’re going to court. The question
here is, “Is this actually a violation of human rights, or is this simply a law
that doesn’t involve the rights of those affected?’
The issue is now being
resurfaced in the news and courts by Miguel Mejía who is one of the eighteen
people who have filed a lawsuit Costa Rica for the banning of in vitro
fertilization. Along with his legal issues, he also brings his personal story
to the courts. Mejía is paralyzed from the waist down, due to an accident, and
is unable to conceive children by normal means. His wife divorced him, and then
had a child with her current husband. Even though his story is touching, he
urges the court not to only think of him when they deliberate this issue, but
of future families. Mejía is quoted by saying, “[I ask the court] not only
for me, but also so that this doesn’t happen to future couples, what has
happened here for the last decade,”
In addition to the
rights of being able to conceive by in vitro fertilization, there is also
another issue present. Costa Rica claims that the embryo is a person from the
point of conception, thus meaning that all the unused embryos (either frozen or
discarded) are resulting in the loss of human life. Using this as a defense,
Costa Rica is pushing towards keeping the practice of in vitro fertilization banned
by claiming that it is not resulting in human life, but rather ending human
life.
Many couples and women
took the stand arguing their side of the case, whether it worked for them, or
resulted in the loss of a child. Whatever side is being fought, you still have
two different issues. The trail was argued on Wednesday and Thursday of this
week in their Supreme Court, and both sides of the case gave their closing
arguments on Thursday before the trail ended at noon. A ruling isn’t expected until
early December.
One of the interesting
aspects of this article is the division between the defense and the plaintiffs.
Both are claiming that there is a human rights issue involved, but there are
two totally different ones in question. On the plaintiff’s side, they are
claiming that by taking away the right to use in vitro fertilization, they are
stripping citizens of their rights to their own life. By law you are guaranteed
to process the right to live your own life, but how is that possible without
the ability to even conceive your own children? In contrast the defense is
claiming that by banning in vitro fertilization you are actually protecting
human rights, just for another group altogether: the rights of the unborn. Their
definition of the embryo is “an embryo is a person after conception”, and since
an embryo is a conceived child, they are holding on to the idea that this
violates the rights of a person. They are also claiming that when the unused
embryos are discarded, you are essentially killing a child. So how can a country
be completely divided by one issue, which is essentially fighting for the same
cause, but for two different groups? I am very excited, to hear the case
develop, and even looking forward to the verdict in December.
Cite where I received
my information: http://www.ticotimes.net/Current-Edition/Top-Story/Is-Costa-Rica-violating-human-rights-by-banning-in-vitro-fertilization-_Friday-September-07-2012
No comments:
Post a Comment