Jurisprudence-Legal Consideration of Single-Status Childbearing Jurisprudence-Legal Consideration of Single-Status Childbearing
International Journal of Medical Toxicology and Forensic Medicine,
Vol. 10 No. 3 (2020),
27 September 2020
Background: Among the achievements of modern fertility technologies available to contemporary humans, we could mention the freezing technique to fertility preservation, and subsequently, unmarried childbearing. The only way for having children was having sexual intercourse with the opposite gender in the past years; however, with the advent of this technology, even without such a relationship, it is possible to have a child. This process could be termed unmarried childbearing or single-status fertilities. This is one of the resent subjects in medical fertility; however, there is no research in this field, in Iran.
Methods: This was an applied and theoretical research in the theology field; thus, no research material was implemented. The main method of this research was the bookcase approach.
Result: In countries such as the USA, UK, and Australia, where there are more coherent laws about employing modern fertility techniques, this issue is addressed and specific laws exist in this regard. However, despite widespread use of this technique in Iran, we have no law in this respect except for the Fetal Donation Act of 2003, which only covers the general issues. In other words, the social fertility mandate has remained silent given permission, prohibition, and its conditions and effects on the child lineage in Iran's laws.
Freezing gametes is practiced in our country for a wide range. Besides, single-status fertility is occurring worldwide. Accordingly, this seems to be among the problems facing our society, and may also be illegally conducted in some cases, in Iran. In Islamic law, the permissible instances of reproductive rights include births through marriage, not otherwise, as well as births employing reproductive aids in terms of meeting the Islamic law. On the other hand, some individuals believe that this case can be regarded as some kind of inoculation with the involvement of a donor agency, and some jurists have voted to allow it. Therefore, these jurists explicitly accepted the use of donor gamete in the form of marital relations. The legislature of the Islamic Republic of Iran also emphasizes on donation to lawful couples in the law of donation approach. Therefore, using donated gametes for childbearing is excluded in singles. Additionally, Judaism and all branches of Christianity, except for the liberal protestant denomination prohibit unmarried childbearing.
While the approach to the issue differs from one country to another, the USA Supreme Court has recognized and protected free relationships, family formation, and decisions on births, as freedom rights. The UK law has subjected the provision of services to single women to the welfare of children resulting from the process. However, in France, the provision of infertility treatment services to single individuals is prohibited. According to Australia law, any single or heterosexual individual without receiving medically-assessed services, i.e., referred to as ‘‘clinically infertile’’ cannot use this technology for having children.
Conclusion: In some countries, like the USA, bearing a child at a single status is legal; however, in some other regions, like the UK and Australia, it is permitted under special conditions. In some countries, like France, this action is prohibited. There is no law about this matter in Iran. The 167 article of the constitution addresses considering the Islamic verses and narrations on preserving the destination of the generation or acquiring the benefits and disposing of the corruption. In conclusion, the only way to have a child and to realize the principle of reproduction is permitted in the framework of religious marriage; thus, bearing a child at a single status is illegal and prohibited, in Iran.
- Child welfare
- Gamete donor
- Single-Status fertility
- Modern fertility technologies
How to Cite
2.Revelli A, Molinari E, Salvagno F, DellePiane L, Dolfin E, Ochetti S. Oocyte Cryostorage
to Preserve Fertility in Oncological Patients.Obstet Gynecol Int. 2012;2012(01):1-7
3.Gracia C, Jeruss J. Lives in the Balance:Women with Cancer and the Right to FertilityCare The Journal of Clinical Oncology (JCO).2013;31(06):668-9.
4.American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Age and Fertility: A Guide for Patient America2012 [cited 2014 08/01/2014 ]; Available from:http://www.asrm.org/uploadedFiles/ASRM_Content/Resources/Patient_Resources/Fact_Sheets_and _Info_Booklets/agefertility.pdf.
5.Batty LP. Assisted Reproductive Technology: The Aotearoa/NewzelandPolicy Context. MA Thesis in Sociology. New Zealand: University at Canterbury; 2002. Available at: http://ir.canterbury.ac.nz/handle/10092/912.Accessed February 12, 2015.
6. Mahmoodian.N. Jurisprudential Consideration Concerning Fertility Preservation by
Gamete Cryopreservation Method, Tehran:Nashre Hoghoghi,2020,p118.
7.Hor Ameli Z. Vasael al-Shieh. 4th ed. Tehran: Eslamiyyeh; 2018. Vol.14 p.172; Vol.17 p.133.
8. Ghortobi M. Al-Jamea al-Ahkam al-Qoran. Beirut: Dar al-Ahya al-Taras al-Arabi; 1984.Vol.5.394.
9. Tabatabai SMH. Al-Mizan. 1st ed. Beirut: Al-Alami Lelmatbooat; 1996. Vol.5 p.86.
10.Mahmoodian.N. Jurisprudential Consideration Concerning Fertility Preservation by
Gamete Cryopreservation Method. Feghh Journal, October & January 2017-2018; 9(32-33): 23-39.p29
11. Tofigh Attar A. Dor al-Eslam fi Tatoor al-Ghanoon al-Arabi al-Ghadim. Al-Azhar Jornal 2010; 41(1): 121-149.
12. Campbell CS. Cloning human beings :Religious perspectives on human cloning.
http://bioethics.georgtown.edu/nbac/pubs/cloning2/cc4.pdf (accessed in 2015)..
13- Koong H. [Zan dar Masihiat]. Translated by Moghdam T. and Bakhshandeh H. Qom: Publicationof Religions and Legal Schools University; 2010, p.28. [in Persian]
14- Anonymous. Religious response to assisted reproductive technology.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_response_to_assisted_reproductive_technology (accessed in2015).
15- Saed M. Hoghogh keifari va shabih sazi.Tehran: Research Center of Medical Ethics and Law; Tehran: Research Center of Medical Ethics and Law;2008, p. 126.
16- Nikiforova B. Theological discourse in bioethics: general and confessional differences.Santalka: Filosofija, Komunikacija 2006;14(1): 60-76.
17- Posner R. [Ahkam 613 Ganeh Torat]. In Suleimani H. Justice of penalty in Judaism, Qom:The Research Center of Religions and LegalSchools; 2005, p. 134.
18. - Madeline Curtis , Inconceivable: How Barriers to Infertility Treatment for Low-Income Women Amount to Reproductive Oppression , Georgetown Journal on Poverty Law and Policy Volume XXV, Number 2, Winter 2018,p341-342
19.Shah,Divya.K,Gold man,Edward,Fisseha,Senait.Medical, Ethical and Legal Consideration in assisted Fertililty Preservation, International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics, 2011, Vol.115,p5-11.
20. Caroline Flint ,MP, Review of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act, Licensing Division, HMSO, St Clements House, 2-16 Colegate, Norwich, NR3 1BQ, email@example.com, Department of Health 2006,p9-10.
21. Patrick Präg,Melinda C. Mills,Assisted Reproductive Technology in Europe: Usage and Regulation in the Context of Cross-Border Reproductive Care, Part of the Demographic Research Monographs book series (DEMOGRAPHIC), First Online: 13 January 2017,p289-309.
22. National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), Australian Government. Ethical guidelines on the use of assisted reproductive technology in clinical practice and research. 2007. [accessed on January 21, 2013]. Available from: www.nhmrc.gov.au/guidelines/publications/e78 .)
23. Peterson MM. Law, Ethics and Medicine; Assisted Reproductive
Technologies and Equality of Access Issue. Journal of Med Ethics 2005; 31:280-285.
24. Infertility Treatment Act 1995 (Vic) ss 18, 19, 79, 80. [accessed on September 24, 2014]. Available from: www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/repealed_act/ita1995264
25. Ghadiri M. The Right to Family Life from a Human Rights Perspective.Ph.D Thesis,
Tehran Iran: Shahid Beheshti University; 2014.
26. Green J. Artificial Insemination in Isreal- A Legal View. Medical Journal
Research 1991; 2(1): 21-28. Available at: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/
jsource/judaism/insemination.pdf. Accessed February 12, 2015.
27. Wardle LD. Global Perspective on Procreation and Parentage by Assisted Reproduction. Capital University Law Review 2006; 35(2): 413-487. Available at: http://law.capital.edu/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?
id=20764. Accessed February 12, 2015.
28. Reproductive Technology Accreditation Committee. Fertility Society of Australia. 2010. [accessed on October 4, 2013]. Available from: www.fertilitysociety.com.au/wp-content/uploads/20080924-rtacscheme-final2.pdf .2
29. Aramesh K. Studying of Ethic Principles in Gamete and Embryo Donation . Gamete and Embryo Donation in Assisted Reproductive Technology.Tehran ;Samt.2008.p331.
30. Fazl Allah SMH. Al-Masael al-Feghheyeh. 1st ed Beirut.: Dar al-Etesam; 1995. p.270.
31. Saswati Sunderam, Assisted Reproductive Technology Surveillance — United States, 2015, Published online 2018 Feb 16. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.ss6703a1.
- Abstract Viewed: 17 times