Results and unsolved problems following the amendment to the Italian Law on assisted reproduction brought about by the Constitutional Court

Ready for polygenic risk scores? An analysis of regulation of preimplantation genetic testing in European countries

STUDY QUESTION

Would the different regulatory approaches for preimplantation genetic testing (PGT) in Europe permit the implementation of preimplantation genetic testing using polygenic risk scores (PGT-P)?

SUMMARY ANSWER

While the regulatory approaches for PGT differ between countries, the space provided for potential implementation of PGT-P seems limited in all three regulatory models.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

PGT is a reproductive genetic technology that allows the testing for hereditary genetic disorders and chromosome abnormalities in embryos before implantation. Throughout its history, PGT has largely been regarded as an ethically sensitive technology. For example, ethical questions have been raised regarding the use of PGT for adult-onset conditions, non-medical sex selection, and human leukocyte antigen typing for the benefit of existing siblings. Countries in which PGT is offered each have their own approach of regulating the clinical application of PGT, and a clear overview of legal and practical regulation of PGT in Europe is lacking. An emerging development within the field of PGT, namely PGT-P, is currently bringing new ethical tensions to the forefront. It is unclear whether PGT-P may be applied within the current regulatory frameworks in Europe. Therefore, it is important to investigate current regulatory frameworks in Europe and determine whether PGT-P fits within these frameworks.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

The aim of this study was to provide an overview of the legal and practical regulation of the use of PGT in seven selected European countries (Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, and the UK) and critically analyse the different approaches with regards to regulatory possibilities for PGT-P. Between July and September 2023, we performed a thorough and extensive search of websites of governments and governmental agencies, websites of scientific and professional organizations, and academic articles in which laws and regulations are described.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

We investigated the legal and regulatory aspects of PGT by analysing legal documents, regulatory frameworks, scientific articles, and guidelines from scientific organizations and regulatory bodies to gather relevant information about each included country. The main sources of information were national laws relating to PGT.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

We divided the PGT regulation approaches into three models. The regulation of PGT differs per country, with some countries requiring central approval of PGT for each new indication (the medical indication model: the UK, the Netherlands), other countries evaluating each individual PGT request at the local level (the individual requests model: France, Germany), and countries largely leaving decision-making about clinical application of PGT to healthcare professionals (the clinical assessment model: Belgium, Italy, Spain). In the countries surveyed that use the medical indication model and the individual requests model, current legal frameworks and PGT criteria seem to exclude PGT-P. In countries using the clinical assessment model, the fact that healthcare professionals and scientific organizations in Europe are generally negative about implementation of PGT-P due to scientific and socio-ethical concerns, implies that, even if it were legally possible, the chance that PGT-P would be offered in the near future might be low.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

The results are based on our interpretation of publicly available written information and documents, therefore not all potential discrepancies between law and practice might have been identified. In addition, our analysis focuses on seven-and not all-European countries. However, since these countries are relevant players within PGT in Europe and since they have distinct PGT regulations, the insights gathered give relevant insights into diverse ways of PGT regulation.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first paper that provides a thorough overview of the legal and practical regulation of PGT in Europe. Our analysis of how PGT-P fits within current regulation models provides guidance for healthcare professionals and policymakers in navigating the possible future implementation of PGT-P within Europe.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

This project has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement no. 813707. The authors declare no conflict of interest.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

N/A.

Assisted human reproduction legislation: Listening to the voice of patients

OBJECTIVE

Legislation and policies regarding assisted human reproduction (AHR) vary widely across nations and societies. As one of only 5 European countries which currently lacks legislation, Ireland now has a unique opportunity to learn from other jurisdictions and introduce AHR law that is reflective of the ongoing myriad developments in this complex field. Draft legislation, initially published in 2017, was revised in 2022 with strong political commitment to enacting in the same year. This study sought to ascertain the views of fertility patients (service users) to the proposed AHR legislation in its current format, prior to its implementation.

STUDY DESIGN

A survey questionnaire, previously designed to investigate the attitudes and perceptions of healthcare professionals (HCPs) towards a broad range of issues contained within the draft AHR Bill, was adapted for a patient/service user population. The survey link was distributed via secure email to all patients that had a doctor consult at our fertility clinic in 2020-2021.

RESULTS

The survey link was sent to 4420 patients/service users, of whom 1044 (23.6%) responded. A majority had experienced AHR treatment. Service users indicated strong support for AHR regulation and for access to all AHR techniques for all patients, irrespective of relationship or gender status. A majority of respondents disagreed with aspects of the draft bill regarding mandatory counselling, the timing of assignment of parentage in surrogacy, the exclusion of international surrogacy and the exclusion of men from posthumous AHR. Interestingly, the fertility patient cohort were more liberal in their views and opinions regarding AHR than the Irish HCPs previously surveyed.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates the views of a large group of AHR patients/service users towards proposed AHR legislation. Many of their views concur with but others differ from those of the drafters of the legislation and from those of healthcare professionals. Consideration of the views of all these groups and a collaborative approach would help ensure that Ireland has AHR legislation that is inclusive and fit for purpose in the 21st century.

Assisted human reproduction legislation: Acknowledging the voice of health care professionals

OBJECTIVE

Ireland is one of 5 European countries which currently lacks specific legislation on Assisted Human Reproduction (AHR). Draft legislation was introduced in 2017 and revised in 2022 with a view to enacting legislation this year (2022). This study sought to ascertain the views of healthcare professionals to proposed AHR legislation, prior to the implementation of that legislation.

STUDY DESIGN

A survey questionnaire based on all clinically relevant aspects of the Irish draft AHR Bill 2017 was distributed to relevant healthcare professionals using an online platform.

RESULTS

Over 200 healthcare personnel indicated strong support for the availability of AHR techniques, access to treatment for all patient populations regardless of relationship or gender status, and appropriate legislation and regulation in the field. Views of respondents are at variance with several proposals surrounding surrogacy, with 84 % favouring a pre-birth order to assign parentage from birth, rather than the proposed birth order 6 weeks after birth. The majority also support legislation around international surrogacy. Contrary to the draft Bill, respondents believe that men, as well as women, should be able to use posthumously any stored gametes or embryos belonging to the deceased partner or the couple. While the majority favour altruistic gamete donation, respondents support more generous compensation for donors, such as compensation for time lost at work.

CONCLUSION

This study has uniquely ascertained the views of healthcare professionals to imminent AHR legislation. It is hoped that the results will help inform the national legislation as it nears completion. Similar studies could help other countries, and policy bodies such as ESHRE to frame good legislation in this extremely specialised and complex field.

The law on artificial insemination: an italian anomaly

The law on medically assisted procreation in Italy, from its entering into force, has undergone numerous amendments. This has been due to the fact that those citizens, directly affected by its imposed prohibitions, have not given in, bringing their requests before the courts, both nationally and internationally. Over the years, the courts through numerous rulings have significantly changed a law clearly incapable of protecting the rights of those involved. Currently Italy has an acceptable law on M.A.P. which is the result of the strong willing of citizens affected by problems of sterility or infertility. The aim of this paper is to present an historical summary of the troubled path which the issue, from every perspective, has faced and is still facing today. As well, it will document how, in Italy, the case-law and, therefore, the law’s interpretation and application by the judges have contributed, in the end, to shaping a positive legislation. (www.actabiomedica.it)

Preimplantation and prenatal diagnosis, wrongful birth and wrongful life: a global view of bioethical and legal controversies

BACKGROUND

Prenatal diagnosis based on different technologies is increasingly used in developed countries and has become a common strategy in obstetric practice. The tests are crucial in enabling mothers to make informed decisions about the possibility of terminating pregnancy. They have generated numerous bioethical and legal controversies in the field of 'wrongful life' claims (action brought by or on behalf of a child against the mother or other people, claiming that he or she has to endure a not-worth-living existence) and 'wrongful birth' claims (action brought by the mother or parents against the physician for being burdened with an unwanted, often disabled child, which could have been avoided).

OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE

The possibility which exists nowadays to intervene actively by programming and deciding the phases linked to procreation and birth has raised several questions worldwide. The mother's right to self-determination could be an end but whether or not this right is absolute is debatable. Freedom could, with time, act as a barrier that obstructs intrusion into other people's lives and their personal choices. Therapeutic choices may be manageable in a liberal sense, and the sanctity of life can be inflected in a secular sense. These sensitive issues and the various points of view to be considered have motivated this review.

SEARCH METHODS

Literature searches were conducted on relevant demographic, social science and medical science databases (SocINDEX, Econlit, PopLine, Medline, Embase and Current Contents) and via other sources. Searches focused on subjects related to bioethical and legal controversies in the field of preimplantation and prenatal diagnosis, wrongful birth and wrongful life. A review of the international state of law was carried out, focusing attention on the peculiar issue of wrongful life and investigating the different jurisdictional solutions of wrongful life claims in a comparative survey.

OUTCOMES

Courts around the world are generally reluctant to acknowledge wrongful life claims due to their ethical and legal implications, such as existence as an injury, the right not to be born, the nature of the harm suffered and non-existence as an alternative to a disabled life. Most countries have rejected such actions while at the same time approving those for wrongful birth. Some countries, such as France with a law passed in March 2002, have definitively excluded Wrongful Life action. Only in the Netherlands and in three states of the USA (California, Washington and New Jersey) Wrongful Life actions are allowed. In other countries, such as Belgium, legislation is unclear because, despite a first decision of the Court allowing Wrongful Life action, the case is still in progress. There is a complete lack of case law regarding wrongful conception, wrongful birth and wrongful life in a few countries, such as Estonia.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS

The themes of 'wrongful birth' and 'wrongful life' are charged with perplexing ethical dilemmas and raise delicate legal questions. These have met, in various countries and on certain occasions, with different solutions and have triggered ethical and juridical debate. The damage case scenarios result from a lack of information or diagnosis prior to the birth, which deprives the mother of the chance to terminate the pregnancy.

Comparative preimplantation genetic diagnosis policy in Europe and the USA and its implications for reproductive tourism

Unlike many European nations, the USA has no regulations concerning the use of preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD), a technique employed during some fertility treatments to select embryos based on their genes. As such, PGD can and is used for a variety of controversial purposes, including sex selection, selection for children with disabilities such as deafness, and selection for 'saviour siblings' who can serve as tissue donors for sick relatives. The lack of regulation, which is due to particular features of the US political and economic landscape, has ethical and practical implications for patients seeking PGD around the world. This paper contrasts the absence of PGD oversight in the USA with existing PGD policies in Switzerland, Italy, France and the UK. The primary reasons why PGD is not regulated in the USA are addressed, with consideration of factors such as funding for assisted reproductive technology treatmemt and the proximity of PGD to the contentious abortion debate. The obstacles that would need to be overcome in the USA for PGD to be regulated in the future are outlined. Then, the significance of the current divergence in PGD policy for patients around the world are discussed. Regulatory differences create opportunities for reproductive tourism, which result in legal, health and moral challenges. The paper concludes with comments on the need for policymakers around the world to balance respect for the characters and constitutions of their individual countries with appreciation of the needs of infertile patients across the globe.

Italian law on medically assisted reproduction: do women's autonomy and health matter?

Background

In Italy in 2004, a very restrictive law was passed on medically assisted reproduction (MAR) (Law 40/2004) that placed Italy at the most conservative end of the European spectrum. The law was widely criticized and many couples seeking MAR brought their cases before the Italian Civil Courts with regard to pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD), donor insemination and the issue of consent. Ten years on, having suffered the blows of the Italian Constitutional Court, little remains of law 40/2004.

Discussion

In 2009, the Constitutional Court declared the maximum limit of the number of embryos to be produced and transferred for each cycle (i.e. three), as stated in the original version of the law, to be constitutionally illegitimate. In 2014, the same Court declared as unconstitutional the ban on donor insemination, thus opening the way to heterologous assisted reproduction. Heterologous MAR is therefore perfectly legitimate in Italy. Finally, in 2015 a further ruling by the Constitutional Court granted the right to access MAR to couples who are fertile but carriers of genetic diseases. However, there is still much room for criticism. Many couples and groups are still, in fact, excluded from MAR. Same-sex couples, single women and those of advanced reproductive age are, at the present time, discriminated against in that Italian law denies these subjects access to MAR.

Summary

The history of Law 40/2004 has been a particularly troubled one. Numerous rulings have, over the years, dismantled much of a law constructed in violation of the rights and autonomy of women and couples. However, a number of troubling issues still exist from what is left of the law and the debate is still open at national and transnational level regarding some of the contradictions and gaps in the law highlighted in this article. Only by abolishing the final prohibitions and adopting more liberal views on these controversial yet crucial issues will Law 40/2004 become what it should have been from the start, i.e. a law which outlines the ‘rules of use’ of MAR and not, as it has been until now, a law of bans which sets limits to the freedom to reproduce.

Reduction of multiple pregnancies in the advanced maternal age population after implementation of an elective single embryo transfer policy coupled with enhanced embryo selection: pre- and post-intervention study

STUDY QUESTION

Is an elective single-embryo transfer (eSET) policy an efficient approach for women aged >35 years when embryo selection is enhanced via blastocyst culture and preimplantation genetic screening (PGS)?

SUMMARY ANSWER

Elective SET coupled with enhanced embryo selection using PGS in women older than 35 years reduced the multiple pregnancy rates while maintaining the cumulative success rate of the IVF programme.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

Multiple pregnancies mean an increased risk of premature birth and perinatal death and occur mainly in older patients when multiple embryos are transferred to increase the chance of pregnancy. A SET policy is usually recommended in cases of good prognosis patients, but no general consensus has been reached for SET application in the advanced maternal age (AMA) population, defined as women older than 35 years. Our objective was to evaluate the results in terms of efficacy, efficiency and safety of an eSET policy coupled with increased application of blastocyst culture and PGS for this population of patients in our IVF programme.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

In January 2013, a multidisciplinary intervention involving optimization of embryo selection procedure and introduction of an eSET policy in an AMA population of women was implemented. This is a retrospective 4-year (January 2010–December 2013) pre- and post-intervention analysis, including 1161 and 499 patients in the pre- and post-intervention period, respectively. The primary outcome measures were the cumulative delivery rate (DR) per oocyte retrieval cycle and multiple DR.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

Surplus oocytes and/or embryos were vitrified during the entire study period. In the post-intervention period, all couples with good quality embryos and less than two previous implantation failures were offered eSET. Embryo selection was enhanced by blastocyst culture and PGS (blastocyst stage biopsy and 24-chromosomal screening). Elective SET was also applied in cryopreservation cycles.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

Patient and cycle characteristics were similar in the pre- and post-intervention groups [mean (SD) female age: 39.6 ± 2.1 and 39.4 ± 2.2 years; range 36–44] as assessed by logistic regression. A total of 1609 versus 574 oocyte retrievals, 937 versus 350 embryo warming and 138 versus 27 oocyte warming cycles were performed in the pre- and post-intervention periods, respectively, resulting in 1854 and 508 embryo transfers, respectively. In the post-intervention period, 289 cycles were blastocyst stage with (n = 182) or without PGS (n = 107). A mean (SD) number of 2.9 ± 1.1 (range 1–4) and 1.4 ± 0.8 (range 1–3) embryos were transferred pre- and post-intervention, respectively (P < 0.01) and similar cumulative clinical pregnancy rates per transfer and per cycle were obtained: 26.8, 30.9% and 29.7, 26.3%, respectively. The total DR per oocyte retrieval cycle (21.0 and 20.4% pre- and post-intervention, respectively) defined as efficacy was not affected by the intervention [odds ratio (OR) = 0.8, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.7–1.1; P = 0.23]. However, a significantly increased live birth rate per transferred embryo (defined as efficiency) was observed in the post-intervention group 17.0 versus 10.6% (P < 0.01). Multiple DRs decreased from 21.0 in the preintervention to 6.8% in the post-intervention group (OR = 0.3. 95% CI = 0.1–0.7; P < 0.01).

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

In this study, the suitability of SET was assessed in individual women on the basis of both clinical and embryological prognostic factors and was not standardized. For the described eSET strategy coupled with an enhanced embryo selection policy, an optimized culture system, cryopreservation and aneuploidy screening programme is necessary.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

Owing to the increased maternal morbidity and perinatal complications related to multiple pregnancies, it is recommended to extend the eSET policy to the AMA population. As shown in this study, enhanced embryo selection procedures might allow a reduction in the number of embryos transferred and the number of transfers to be performed without affecting the total efficacy of the treatment but increasing efficiency and safety.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

None.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

None.