This week, Bombay High Court allowed two women above 50 to undergo tests to assess their fitness for pregnancy after they were denied access to assisted reproductive technology (ART), such as IVF, because of their age. Under ART Act 2021, women are allowed to undergo such procedures only between the ages of 21 and 50. However, this does not mean they have been granted permission to proceed with IVF yet. The court has sought expert input and appointed an amicus curiae to assist in examining the legal and medical aspects of the case more closely.
Globally, IVF thresholds reflect a nation's economic and sociocultural philosophies. Japan lacks a formal age law but guidelines discourage IVF after 45, prioritising public health and success rate metrics to mitigate neonatal risks. Conversely, a younger Brazil has a 50-yr recommendation but permits exceptions based on medical assessment. Its responsible autonomy logic empowers physicians rather than statutes, treating health as an individual variable rather than a collective statistic. In India, the push against age caps is rooted in personal choice and potent social norms. Motherhood remains a primary source of social identity and security - thus, rigid ceilings ignore socioeconomic realities.
Ultimately, the focus must shift from prohibition to science-based risk management. While late-term pregnancies carry known risks, these are informed risks that individuals should be allowed to undertake after professional assessment. This IVF debate should also serve as a catalyst for data-driven decision-making across all sectors - from environment to urban planning. Replacing arbitrary blanket bans with rigorous, individualised/localised data ensures that science supports, rather than stifles, human agency.
Globally, IVF thresholds reflect a nation's economic and sociocultural philosophies. Japan lacks a formal age law but guidelines discourage IVF after 45, prioritising public health and success rate metrics to mitigate neonatal risks. Conversely, a younger Brazil has a 50-yr recommendation but permits exceptions based on medical assessment. Its responsible autonomy logic empowers physicians rather than statutes, treating health as an individual variable rather than a collective statistic. In India, the push against age caps is rooted in personal choice and potent social norms. Motherhood remains a primary source of social identity and security - thus, rigid ceilings ignore socioeconomic realities.
Ultimately, the focus must shift from prohibition to science-based risk management. While late-term pregnancies carry known risks, these are informed risks that individuals should be allowed to undertake after professional assessment. This IVF debate should also serve as a catalyst for data-driven decision-making across all sectors - from environment to urban planning. Replacing arbitrary blanket bans with rigorous, individualised/localised data ensures that science supports, rather than stifles, human agency.
