Preimplantation Genetic Testing should not be mandatory for every child born through IVF

0 have signed. Let’s get to 1,000!

The Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill, 2020 states that the bill intends to make Preimplantation Genetic Testing mandatory for the benefit of the Child born through ART. One should elaborate which type of genetic testing is mandatory? Millions of children born through IVF are leading a healthy life. Meta analysis and systematic reviews have also proven this except concerns regarding epigenetics reprogramming in rare cases. 

The concept of PGD was initially invented in attempts to prevent sex-linked diseases (by determining the gender of embryos, and transferring only females), and in efforts to diagnose embryos affected by single gene diseases, prior to their transfers. These traditional indications for PGD are now widely accepted, and applied, though by no means universally.

The concept of medical testing involves four basic premises:
(i) any test should offer new information; (ii) the information obtained via the test should lead to a change in therapy; (iii) the gain from testing should outweigh its risks, and (iv) the overall process of testing, and treatment responses, should be cost-effective. In other words, risk benefit, and cost-benefit, ratios should make sense. It is still questionable whether PGS indications, indeed, overall meet the requirements of improved risk-benefit, and cost-benefit, ratios. There are, in principle, two reasons for such doubt: (i) In contrast to widely made statements in the literature, there is no supportive evidence for the claim that embryo biopsy (and the added manipulation of embryos, required by PGD/PGS) does not negatively affect the implantation and pregnancy chances of embryos. Indeed, our interpretation of the currently available literature is that the best currently available evidence suggests that embryo biopsy, indeed, slightly reduces pregnancy chances for such treated embryos. (ii) Currently available
techniques of chromosomal analysis are inadequately inaccurate, leading to unacceptably high false-positive and false-negative diagnoses.
These two shortcomings alone, suggest that valid risk-benefit and cost-benefit analyses can currently not be established for PGS indications. Consequently, the performance of PGS procedures does not fulfill two of the four basic criteria for a clinically valid, and established, test. One, therefore, has to conclude that, in contrast to the traditional indications of PGD,
PGS indications should be offered only under experimental study conditions. Gleicher et al.,2018.

IVF itself is expensive and added PGT, will put an enormous financial load on the patients. Only the affluent group will be able to afford it. 

Most Importantly: who will bear the cost? Patient or the Government?