The Restrictions for ARTs Applicants in the Light of Human Rights Principles The Restrictions for ARTs Applicants
Bioethics and Health Law Journal (BHL),
Vol. 1 No. 1 (2021),
Page 1-12: (e13)
Background and Aim: Having one's child is one of the strong desires in human beings especially in married persons who sometimes and for some reason are not capable to achieve. Using ARTs is one of their choices to have a baby while there are some barriers and restrictions for the ARTs applicants, both married and singles, to access which may evaluate in different ways, especially in the light of some basic principles of human rights, including the principles of freedom and non-discrimination and along with, because of the vital importance of respect to child’s rights, the principle of the best interest of a child also is a good criterion for this evaluation.
Materials and Methods: In the present study, keywords of persons with disabilities, the best interest of the child, principle of freedom, and non-discrimination in databases PubMed, Magiran, SID, ISC, and Google Scholar were searched and relevant literature was searched and analyzed.
Ethical Considerations: Honesty in the literature and citation analysis and reporting were considered.
Findings: This paper examines the limitations and prohibitions imposed for access to these technologies based on human rights principles. While the respect to freedom and equality of people demands to minimize this restriction, the best interest of a child principle should be the paramount consideration. In the other words, it is necessary to create a balance between the rights of applicants and the rights of the future child with a focus on the best interests of the child and to the main purpose of the application of these techniques for humans, with an approach, preventing dehumanization of the technologies. Accordingly, they recommend the adoption of legislation and regulations, as well as providing specialized counseling services to the applicants and help them during the decision-making by explaining all existing concerns regarding their child's rights in the future and create a balance between their rights and the future child's.
Conclusion: Access to infertility treatment technologies for infertile couples has always created concerns for service providers about the balance between the rights of parents and future children and policymakers at the macro level. Adoption of laws and regulations, as well as providing specialized counseling services to the applicants and help them during the decision-making by explaining all existing concerns regarding their children's rights in the future could play an important role in creating a balance between their rights and future child's.
*Corresponding Author: Mahrou Ghadiri; Email: email@example.com; ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6756-2188
- Found a Family
- International Human Rights Law
- The Best Interest of the Child
How to Cite
Koulu S. Children’s Right to Family Life in Finland: a Constitutional Right or a Side Effect of the “Normal Family”?. InChildren’s Constitutional Rights in the Nordic Countries 2019 Nov 19 (pp. 338-356). Brill Nijhoff.
Infertility: An Overview, A Guide for Patients Revised 2012. American Society for Reproductive Medicine. 24 pages. Available at: http://www.asrm.org/uploadedFiles/ASRM_Content/Resources/Patient_Resources/Fact_Sheets_and_Info_Booklets/infertility_overview.pdf. Accessed February 12, 2015.
Kindregan C P. Clarifying the Law of ART: The New American Bar Association Model Act Governing Assisted Reproductive Technology. Family Law Quarterly 2008; 42: 171-202. Available at: http://ssrn.com/ abstract=1275999. Accessed February 12, 2015.
Infertility. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office on Women’s Health. 2009. 7 pages. Available at: https://www.womenshealth.gov/ publications/our-publications/fact-sheet/infertility.pdf. Accessed February 12, 2015.
Nasiri M. Analytic History of Early Islam. Qom: Maaref publications; 2015. [Persian]
Adamson GD, de Mouzon J, Chambers GM, Zegers-Hochschild F, Mansour R, Ishihara O, Banker M, Dyer S. International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technology: world report on assisted reproductive technology, 2011. Fertility and sterility. 2018 Nov 1;110(6):1067-80.
Petoft A, Abbasi M. Current limits of neurolaw: A brief overview. Médecine & Droit. 2020 Apr 1;2020(161):29-34.
Petoft A. An Overview of the Technical Limitations of Applying the fMRI Method in Neurolaw. Bioethics Journal. 2019;9(34):95-107.
Tobin J. The Convention on the Rights of the Child: The Rights and Best Interests of Children Conceived Through Assisted Reproduction. Legal Studies Research Paper, No. 541. Law School University of Melbourne. 2004. 77 pages. Available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1852928. Accessed February 12, 2015.
Roshan M, Ghadiri M. Child Adoption and the Rhight to a Family in Light of the Best Interest of the Child. Revue De Recherche Juridique 2013; Special No. 14: 73-102. [Persian]
Abbasi M, Petoft A. Citizenship Rights: from Good Governance to Administrative Procedures. Tehran: Justice Publication. 2017:205-6.
Using Family Members as Gamete Donors or Surrogates. The Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Fertil Steril 2012; 98(4): 799-803. American Society for Reproductive Medicine, Birmingham, Alabama. Available at: http://www.sart.org/uploadedFiles/ ASRM_Content/News_and_Publications/Ethics_Committee_Reports_and_Statements/family_members.pdf. Accessed February 12, 2015.
Petoft A. The Validation Requirments of Neurscientific Evidences before Courts. Iranian Journal of Medical Law. 2021 Apr 10;15(56):431-43.
Inhorn MC. Making Muslim Babies: Sunni Versus Shia Approaches to IVF and Gamete Donation. paper presented at session 108 on Infertility and New Reproductive Technologies IUSSP Annual Conference Tours. France, July 2005.
Quartuccio M, Biondi V, Liotta L, Passantino A. Legislative and ethical aspects on use of canine artificial insemination in the 21st century. Italian Journal of Animal Science. 2020 Dec 14;19(1):630-43.
Roshan M. Family Law. 2nd ed. Tehran: Jungle publications; 2012. [Persian]
Petoft A, Abbasi M. A historical overview of law and neuroscience: From the emergence of medico-legal discourses to developed neurolaw. Archivio Penale. 2019;1(2):1-48.
Sabatello M. Who‘s Got Parental Rights? The Intersection Between Infertility, Reproductive Technologies, and Disability Rights Law. Journal of Health & Biomedical Law. Suffolk University Law School 2010; VI: 227-259. Available at: http://suffolk.edu/documents/Law%20Journal%20of%20 H%20and%20B/Sabatello-227-259.pdf. Accessed February 12, 2015.
Nikoletta P. Reproductive Tourism in Europe: Legal and Ethical Issues, The cases of Sweden and Greece. MA Dissertation in Human Rights and Democratization. UPPSALA, Sweden; 2014. Available at: http://www.constitutionalism.gr/site/ wp-ontent/uploads/2014/08/2014_Pikramenou-Nicole_Reproductive-tourism.pdf. Accessed February 12, 2015.
Abbasi M, Petoft A. Citizenship rights, from Principles to social Platform. Tehran: Legal Publishers. 2017:85.
Chmel R, Cekal M, Pastor Z, Chmel Jr R, Paulasova P, Havlovicova M, Macek Jr M, Novackova M. Assisted reproductive techniques and pregnancy results in women with Mayer-Rokitansky-Küster-Hauser syndrome undergoing uterus transplantation: the Czech experience. Journal of pediatric and adolescent gynecology. 2020 Aug 1;33(4):410-4.
Assisted Reproductive Technology, National Report, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, US Department of Health and Human Services. 2014. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/art/ pdf/2012-report/national-summary/art_2012_national_summary_report.pdf. Accessed February 12, 2015.
Goodman A, Greaves E. Cohabitation, Marriage and Child Outcomes. London: The Institute of Fiscal Studies; 2010.
Garrison M. The Decline of Formal Marriage:Inevitable or Reversible?. Family Law Quarterly 2007; 1(3): 488-518. Available at: http://ssrn.com/ abstract=1084562. Accessed February 12, 2015.
Ross FC, Moll T. Assisted Reproduction: politics, ethics and anthropological futures. Medical anthropology. 2020 Aug 17;39(6):553-62.
Abassi M, Petoft A. Fundamentals of Neurolaw. Tehran: Medical Ethics and Law Research Center, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences. 2019.
Joslin, et al. v. NewZeland, Communication 902/1999U.N. Doc. A/57/40 at 214 (2002). Available at: https://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/undocs/902-1999.html. Accessed February 12, 2015.
Conte A, Davidson S, Burchill R. Defining Civil and Political Rights, The Jurisprudence of the UN Human Rights Committee. Ashgate publication; 2004.
Standard Rules on the Equalization of Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities. A/RES/48/96, 20 December 1993.
Petoft A. Concept and scope of the general principles of administrative law and referring possibility in the judicial procedure. The Judiciary Research Institute Publishing Center.2016.
Prenatal Testing and Disability Rights. in: Assisted Reproductive Technology. Available at: http://ncd.gov/publications. 9/11/2012. Accessed February 12, 2015.
Pendo E. Disability, Equipment Barriers, and Women’s Health: Using the ADA to Provide Meaningful Access. Saint Louis University Journal of Health Law and Policy 2008; 2(4): 15-58.
Barnes L, Fledderjohann J. Reproductive justice for the invisible infertile: A critical examination of reproductive surveillance and stratification. Sociology Compass. 2020 Feb;14(2):e12745.
Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities; 2006.
Mirmohammadi SM. The Rights of the Child: A Comparative Study of Islam and International Instruments (A Collection of Papers). Qom Iran: Mofid University and UNICEF publications; 2014. [Persian]
Spriggs M, Charles T. Should HIV-Discordant Couples Have Access to Assisted Reproductive Technologies?. Journal of Medical Ethics. January 2012; 25: 325-329. In: Assisted Reproductive Technology. Available at: http://ncd.gov/publications. 9/11/2012. Accessed February 12, 2015.
Petoft A, Abasi M. Citizenship Rights: from the Government Protection to Monitoring on it. Tehran: Justice Publication. 2017:59-65.
- Abstract Viewed: 0 times
- PDF Downloaded: 0 times