İnsanla ilgili her teknolojide olduğu gibi, ilk tüp bebeğinin doğumundan bu yana hızla gelişen üreme tıbbı teknolojisi ve ona yetişmekten çok günlük geçici çözümler bulma telaşında olan düzenlemelerin temel etik ve hukuk kurallarına uygunluğu ilgi çekici bir konu olmaya devam etmektedir. Burada tıptan çok teknolojinin gelişiminden söz edilmektedir. 3 ana konu başlığı gerçekçi bir bakışla yeniden gözden geçirilmelidir. Medikal teknolojik uygulamaların hızlı gelişimi; teknoloji, teoloji, sosyoloji ve kültürel konularla ilişkili embriyonun yeniden tanımlanması ve klasik aile kavramının güncellenmesi. Bütün bu değişim ve sorumluluk barındıran gelişmeler beraberinde yeni sorular ve düzenlemeler gerektirmektedir. Kendi fanusunun tekelinde olan dünyaya ait uygulamalar, bilinç ve iletişimin artması ile yalnız toplumun dikkatini çekmekle kalmayıp, gerçekçi bir yaklaşım, uzman gözü ve sorumluluk bilinci ile ona yatırım yapan, ondan beslenen otorite, kurum ve yönetimlerin de dikkatini çekmiş ve Embriyoloji bilimine ait bu yeni kavramlar insan embriyosuna varoluşu ile ilgili daha sofistike bir bakışı gerektirmiştir. Laboratuvar ortamında bir embriyonun petri kabında yaratılıp birkaç saatten birkaç güne kadar orada geliştirilmesi, bu kavramın erken dönem basit hücrelerden çok mülkiyet haklarına yönelik hipotezlerin oluşmasına yol açmıştır. Dünyanın yeniden düzene girmeye ya da her şeyi alaşağı etmeye başladığı bu günlerde üreme tıbbı açısından unutulmaması gereken birey onurunun, mirasının ve haklarının korunması amacıyla muhtemel sorunlar ve çözümlere yeni bir yaklaşımla bir yorum getirilmek istenmiştir.

As with every technology related to humans, the rapidly developing reproductive medicine technology since the birth of the first test tube baby and the compliance of regulations that are in a rush to find daily temporary solutions rather than catch up with it, with basic ethical and legal rules continue to be an interesting subject. Here, we are talking about the development of technology rather than medicine. 3 main topics should be reviewed with a realistic perspective. The rapid development of medical technological applications; the redefinition of the embryo related to technology, theology, sociology and cultural issues and the updating of the classical family concept. All these changes and developments that involve responsibility require new questions and regulations. Applications belonging to the world, which is monopolized by its own bowl, have not only attracted the attention of the society with the increase in awareness and communication, but also the attention of the authorities, institutions and administrations that invest in it and feed on it with a realistic approach, expert eye and sense of responsibility, and these new concepts belonging to the science of embryology have required a more sophisticated view of the human embryo regarding its existence. The creation of an embryo in a laboratory environment in a petri dish and its development there for a few hours to a few days has led to the formation of hypotheses regarding property rights rather than the early simple cells of this concept. In these days when the world is starting to reorganize or to overthrow everything, it has been desired to bring an interpretation with a new approach to possible problems and solutions in order to protect the dignity, heritage and rights of the individual, which should not be forgotten in terms of reproductive medicine.

1. Mendizabal-Ruiz G, Chavez-Badiola A, Hernández-Morales E, Valencia-Murillo R, Ocegueda-Hernández V, Costa-Borges N, et al. A digitally controlled, remotely operated ICSI system: case report of the first live birth. Reprod Biomed Online. 2025;50(5):104943. [Crossref]  [PubMed] 
2. Merriam-Webster [Internet] © 2025 Merriam-Webster [Cited: May 7, 2021]. Embryo. Available from [Link] 
3. Ford NM. The Prenatal Person: Ethics from Conception to Birth. 1st ed. New Jersey, USA: Wiley- Blackwell; 2008. p. 46. [Crossref]  [PubMed] 
4. destruction-and--potential-travel-restrictions-for-surrogacy-arrangements2/ [Link] 
5. DeGrazia D. Creation Ethics. Reproduction, Genetics, and Quality of Life. Online ed. New York, USA: Oxford University Press; 2012. p. 234. DOI: [Crossref]  [PubMed] 
6. Baris M, Uslu B. Can we consider embryos solely as biological material? In: Proceedings of the ICOFMEP International Conference of Future Medical Pioneers. USA, New Haven: Scholars’ Press; 2021. p. 1-10
7. Dutch Embryo Act. Section 5.2. 2022. Available from: [Accessed: April 29, 2025] [Link] 
8. Health Council of the Netherlands. 2022. Available from: see note 12: 45. [Accessed: April 6, 2025] [Link] 
9. National Consultative Ethics Committee. Opinion on the Preliminary Draft Revision of the Law on Bioethics. Opinion No. 67. Paris: CCNE; 2001 [Crossref] 
10. Pennings G. New Belgian law on research on human embryos: trust in progress through medical science. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2003;20(8):343-6. [Crossref]  [PubMed] 
11. [Link] 
12. Members of the Belgian National Consultative Bioethics Committee have used the potentiality argument in defence of legalizing embryo research and the generation of research embryos. Belgian National Consultative Bioethics Committee. Advies nr. 18 d.d. 16 september 2002 betreffende het onderzoek met het menselijk embryo in vitro. Brussels; 2002 [Crossref]  [PubMed] 
13. Kaciroglu F. Turkish ministry of health oral presentation. In: Proceedings of the ICOFMEP International Conference of Future Medical Pioneers. USA, New Haven: Scholars’ Press; 2021. p. 1-10
14. Hursthouse R. 1987 Beginning Lives. Blackwell, Oxford and Cambridge. Infertility Treatment Authority Interim Policy: Tissue Typing in Conjunction with Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis. 2002. Available from: http//www.ita.org.au/forms/policy_mar2002.pdf. [Accessed: 2025-04-04]
15. Kevles DJ. Eugenics and human rights. BMJ. 1999;319(7207):435-8. [Crossref]  [PubMed]  [PMC] 
16. Alpha Scientists in Reproductive Medicine. The Alpha Consensus Meeting on the professional status of the clinical embryologist: proceedings of an expert meeting. Reprod Biomed Online. 2015;30(5):451-61. [Crossref]  [PubMed] 
17. [Link] 
18. [Link] 
19. [Link] 
20. Perri AR, Mitchell KJ, Mouton A, Álvarez-Carretero S, Hulme-Beaman A, Haile J, et al. Dire wolves were the last of an ancient New World canid lineage. Nature. 2021;591(7848):87-91. [Crossref]  [PubMed] 
21. Nachtigall RD, Becker G, Friese C, Butler A, MacDougall K. Parents' conceptualization of their frozen embryos complicates the disposition decision. Fertil Steril. 2005;84(2):431-4. [Crossref]  [PubMed]  [PMC] 
22. Dolly FS. Mixtures: The Remaking of Genealogy. Durham, NC: Duke Univ. Press; 2007. p. 68. ISBN 13:9780822339205
23. Liao SM. Do Mitochondrial Replacement Techniques Affect Qualitative or Numerical Identity? Bioethics. 2017;31(1):20-6. [Crossref]  [PubMed] 
24. Habermas J. The Future of Human Nature. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press; 2003. p. 44. ISBN 13:9780745629872
25. Oregon Health and Science University Human skin cells converted into embryonic stem cells: First time human stem cells have been produced via nuclear transfer. [Internet]. 2013. [online] Science Daily, May 15, Available from: [Accessed: May 4, 2025] [Link] 
26. Marton I. The human embryo and its right to live: a contribution to the sociology of death. Periodicum Biologorum. 2009;111(3):373-80. Coden Pdbiad Issn 0031-5362
27. Zoloth L. Stem cell research: a target article collection: Part I--Jordan's banks, a view from the first years of human embryonic stem cell research. Am J Bioeth. 2002;2(1):3-11, 30. [Crossref]  [PubMed] 
28. Outka G. The ethics of human stem cell research. Kennedy Inst Ethics J. 2002;12(2):175-213. [Crossref]  [PubMed] 
29. [Link]