The European Court legitimates access of Italian couples to assisted reproductive techniques and to pre-implantation genetic diagnosis

Bioethical issues and legal frameworks of surrogacy: A global perspective about the right to health and dignity

Modern advances in assisted reproduction technology (ART) have disrupted the traditional concept of parenthood. Every year, thousands of people travel abroad from their home countries in order to circumvent restrictive legislation or to benefit from lower fees. In a similar context, surrogacy raises many bioethical and legal issues. The present paper will address the main questions arising from the debate prompted by surrogacy, focusing on international legislation, and looking critically at the different legislative models. As a result of worldwide heterogeneity in policies, legal approaches, and access to ART throughout the world, a growing number of would-be parents are seeking treatment abroad. The lack of regulation on cross-border surrogacy in low income countries can undermine the dignity and rights of women as even modest economic compensation determines a significant purchasing power. The international effort should be aimed at creating an international regulatory framework from which guidelines useful to national governments derive. An international agreement would provide a solid legal basis for the protection of surrogate women. In order to limit the economic interests linked to procreative tourism, so as to truly protect global health and women's rights, legislative uniformity is therefore necessary between the various states.

Regulating Preimplantation Genetic Testing across the World: A Comparison of International Policy and Ethical Perspectives

Preimplantation genetic testing (PGT) is a reproductive technology that, in the course of in vitro fertilization (IVF), allows prospective parents to select their future offspring based on genetic characteristics. PGT could be seen as an exercise of reproductive liberty, thus potentially raising significant socioethical and legal controversy. In this review, we examine-from a comparative perspective-variations in policy approaches to the regulation of PGT. We draw on a sample of 19 countries (Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Israel, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Netherlands, Singapore, South Korea, Switzerland, United Kingdom, and the United States) to provide a global landscape of the spectrum of policy and legislative approaches (e.g., restrictive to permissive, public vs. private models). We also explore central socioethical and policy issues and contentious applications, including permissibility criteria (e.g., medical necessity), nonmedical sex selection, and reproductive tourism. Finally, we further outline genetic counseling requirements across policy approaches.

The increasing challenge of genetic counseling for cystic fibrosis

Genetic counseling for cystic fibrosis (CF) is challenged by intricate molecular mechanisms, complex phenotypes, and psychosocial needs. CFTR variant interpretation has become critical; this manuscript examines variant nomenclature and classes, as well as opportunities and challenges posed by genetic technologies and genotype-directed therapies. With post-graduate training in medical genetics and counseling, genetic counselors educate patients and families, facilitate testing and interpretation, and help integrate genetic information into diagnosis and treatment. They support families, ranging from carrier couples or new parents, to children understanding their disease, to adults with CF contemplating reproduction. The changing face of CF increasingly highlights the critical importance of genetic information to patients and their families. Genetic counselors are uniquely poised to translate this information in diagnostics and personalized care. Genetic counselors straddle molecular and clinical realms, helping patients adapt, plan, and gain access to appropriate therapies.

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.

Clinicians' attitude towards family planning and timing of diagnosis in autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease

Several ethical aspects in the management of Autosomal Dominant Polycystic Kidney Disease (ADPKD) are still controversial, including family planning and testing for disease presence in at-risk individuals. We performed an online survey aiming to assess the opinion and current clinical practice of European pediatric and adult nephrologists, as well as geneticists. A total of 410 clinicians (53% male, mean (SD) age of 48 (10) years) responded, including 216 pediatric nephrologists, 151 adult nephrologists, and 43 clinical geneticists. While the 3 groups agreed to encourage clinical testing in asymptomatic ADPKD minors and adults, only geneticists would recommend genetic testing in asymptomatic at-risk adults (P<0.001). Statistically significant disagreement between disciplines was observed regarding the ethical justification of prenatal genetic diagnosis, termination of pregnancy and pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) for ADPKD. Particularly, PGD is ethically justified according to geneticists (4.48 (1.63)), whereas pediatric (3.08 (1.78); P<0.001) and adult nephrologists (3.66 (1.88); P<0.05) appeared to be less convinced. Our survey suggests that most clinicians support clinical testing of at-risk minors and adults in ADPKD families. However, there is no agreement for genetic testing in asymptomatic offspring and for family planning, including PGD. The present data highlight the need for a consensus among clinicians, to avoid that ADPKD families are being given conflicting information.

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.