Summary of the Case Facts
The case in question originated when A.P. and M.M., a couple who had resorted to assisted human reproduction techniques in February 2015, succeeded in conceiving their only child, who was born in October 2015. During this process, two embryos were transferred to the mother, while three additional embryos were cryopreserved at the Procrearte S.A. clinic. The couple signed a contract with the clinic stipulating that the embryos would be used in future transfers or, if not desired, joint written instructions would determine their fate.
In 2018, the couple stopped cohabiting, and at the beginning of 2021, they sought judicial authorization to remove the three remaining embryos from cryopreservation, as they had no intention of having more children. When contacted, the clinic informed them that judicial authorization was required to discard the embryos, which led the couple to initiate legal action.
The National Civil Court No. 77 rejected the couple’s request, but this decision was overturned by Chamber I of the National Appeals Court, which deemed judicial authorization unnecessary due to the lack of controversy between the parties regarding their decision to terminate the contract with the clinic. The Public Prosecutor’s Office appealed this ruling, and advocated for the protection of the embryos’ rights, arguing that they were not merely goods within a contract, but developing human beings.
Finally, on August 20, 2024, the Supreme Court of Justice ruled on the case, rejecting the Public Prosecutor’s Office’s appeal and determining that there was no legitimate dispute warranting its intervention. Furthermore, it urged Congress to specifically regulate the situation of cryopreserved embryos, thereby establishing a precedent of significant neglect regarding human life.
Analysis of the Ruling
- Dismissal of the Legitimacy of the Public Prosecutor’s Office
One of the most notable errors in the Supreme Court’s ruling was the dismissal of the Public Prosecutor’s Office appeal. This body is responsible for promoting justice in defense of human rights and the general interests of society. In this case, the Attorney General argued that cryopreserved embryos deserve protection and that their right to life should be defended in court. However, the Court denied such legitimacy, claiming there was no case or controversy that warranted its intervention.
This results in a significant lack of protection for embryos, who, being considered uninterested parties, are left without a representative in the justice system. Thus, the ruling sets a dangerous precedent by ignoring the rights of embryos and failing to allow their defense in a system that should be inclusive and equitable. This highlights the urgent need for a legal framework prioritizing their protection from conception.
- Inhumane Treatment of Embryos
The Court’s ruling also impacts the commodification of embryos by treating them as mere goods within a contract. By allowing embryos to be subject to arbitrary decisions within contractual relationships, their inherent rights as developing human beings are disregarded. The contract signed between the couple and the clinic, which outlined the disposition of the embryos, clearly exemplifies how they are transformed into mere commodities, leading to a treatment that dehumanizes their existence and denies fundamental rights that are constitutionally protected.
The ability of the parties to decide on the embryos’ fate, instead of recognizing them as individuals with rights, reduces their value to contractual conditions that considers discarding them as a valid option. This commodification opens up a range of potential abuses and ignores the dignity and intrinsic value of human life from conception.
- Prior Jurisprudence from Chamber I of the National Appeals Court
Another significant conflict arose from the failure to consider the prior jurisprudence established by Chamber I of the National Appeals Court, which had affirmed the protection of cryopreserved embryos in 1999. On that occasion, the same Chamber had advocated for the recognition of embryos as subjects of rights, emphasizing their need for protection and even urging a census of embryos. However, in this new context, the same Chamber, followed by the Court, upheld a decision that directly contradicts previously established principles.
The Court’s ruling not only ignores this prior jurisprudence but could also be interpreted as a setback in the legal protection of embryos. By approving the discard of cryopreserved embryos, the Court could have jeopardized decades of advances in recognizing the rights of human beings from conception and promoted an environment where the rights of embryos are subordinated to contractual decisions.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s ruling that endorsed the discard of cryopreserved embryos represents a serious conflict in the protection of human life from conception. The dismissal of the legitimacy of the Public Prosecutor’s Office, the inhumane treatment of embryos as contractual goods, and the disdain for the previous jurisprudence from Chamber I of the National Appeals Court highlight the urgent need for a clear and robust legal framework that ensures the defense of embryos’ rights. It is imperative to establish regulations that recognize their human character and prevent decisions that jeopardize their life and dignity. Without effective protection, embryos remain vulnerable to practices that may disregard their existence and fundamental rights.
Read the Spanish version of this article here.
