Medically assisted human reproductive technologies (ART) and human rights - the european perspective

• Author: Elisabeth Steiner, Andreea Maria Rosu
• Pages: 339-369

FRONTIERS OF LAW IN CHINA

VOL. 11 JUNE 2016 NO. 2

DOI 10.3868/s050-005-016-0019-1

ARTICLE

MEDICALLY ASSISTED HUMAN REPRODUCTIVE TECHNOLOGIES (ART)

AND HUMAN RIGHTS — THE EUROPEAN PERSPECTIVE

Elisabeth Steiner*, Andreea Maria Roşu**

Abstract The present article examines how the progress of science, and in particular,

medically assisted human reproductive technologies (ART) have provoked a revolution

in the sphere of family relations, generating a series of ethical and legal conflicts. The

article focuses on the European perspective, without ignoring the international sphere,

given the globalization of the phenomenon. The emerging legal issues are analyzed

through the filter of international human rights, not only an important aspect to take into

consideration in the context of bioethics in general, but a “passage obligé” given that

certain concepts find their explanation and coordinates in international human rights law.

It is from this perspective that the relationship between ART and human rights is

presented. The applicable international and European legal instruments and principles

shall be mentioned, as well as a brief comparison of national legal frameworks in Europe.

The emerging bioethical and legal issues are examined in correlation with the response

of the European Court of Human Rights through its case law aimed at balancing

conflicting rights when faced with issues pertaining to ART. Lastly, the article presents

in more detail the particular legal issues under debate in France and Italy, two European

countries with specific legislation in the field.

Keywords human rights, bioethics, European Convention on Human Rights, surrogacy

INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 341

A. What Is ART?..................................................................................................... 341

B. Initial Purpose and Present (Ab)use..................................................................342

C. Why ART and Human Rights?........................................................................... 343

I. A LIMITED AND UNEVEN EUROPEAN NORMATIVE FRAMEWORK............................ 344

A. International Conventions and Declarations Applicable at European

Level................................................................................................................... 344

* Elisabeth Steiner, Ph.D in Law and Business Administration, University of Vienna, Austria; Professor of

Human Rights Law, International and European Law; Lawyer, Austrian Bar Association; former Judge and

Vice-President of Section at the European Court of Human Rights, Strasbourg, France. Contact:

e.steiner@gmx.com

** Andreea Maria Roşu, Master Degree in European Human Rights Law, Université Montpellier I France;

Lawyer, Bucharest Bar Association, Romania; former lawyer with the Registry of the European Court of

Human Rights, Strasbourg, France. Contact: andreea.maria.rosu@gmail.com

340 FRONTIERS OF LAW IN CHINA [Vol. 11: 339

1. UNESCO — Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human

Rights (1997) ................................................................................................344

2. UNESCO — Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights

(2005)............................................................................................................ 344

3. UN — The Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989).......................... 345

B. Specific European Legal Instruments: The Council of Europe and the

European Union................................................................................................. 345

1. CoE — Oviedo Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine

(1997)............................................................................................................ 346

2. The EU’s Legal Framework ..........................................................................346

C. Large Margin of Appreciation of States, Lack of Consensus, Gaps in

National Legislation .......................................................................................... 348

1. Germany........................................................................................................ 349

2. Italy ...............................................................................................................349

3. France............................................................................................................ 349

4. UK................................................................................................................. 349

5. Russia............................................................................................................ 350

6. Romania........................................................................................................ 351

II. EMERGING ETHICAL AND LEGAL ISSUES IN THE INTERACTION BETWEEN ART AND

HUMAN RIGHTS ..................................................................................................... 351

A. Balancing Conflicting Rights and Interests .......................................................352

B. An Emerging Right to ART?.............................................................................. 352

C. Third-Party Gamete Donor

—

Anonymity vs the Right to Know One’s

Genetic Origins.................................................................................................. 353

D. Genetic Selection of Offspring and Scientific Research on Human

Embryos ............................................................................................................ 354

E. Surrogacy .......................................................................................................... 355

III. CASE LAW OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS — AN ATTEMPT TO

BALANCE COMPETING RIGHTS AT STAKE ............................................................. 357

A. Article 2 of ECvHR

—

When Does Life Begin?............................................ 357

B. Article 8 of ECvHR

—

A Right to ART?........................................................ 358

C. Which Rights for the Future ART-Born Child? ...............................................360

VI. THE FRENCH CAUTIOUS LEGAL FRAMEWORK ..................................................... 361

A. A Softening Evolution of the Regulation on Research on Human Embryos .... 361

B. A Firm Position as to the Principle of Absolute Anonymity of Donors ........... 362

C. A Step Further with regard to the Undesired Effects of Cross-Border

Surrogacy......................................................................................................... 363

V. THE ITAL IA N PROHIBITIVE LEGISLATION ............................................................... 365

A. A Legal Framework Strongly Influenced by the Catholic Morals .....................365

B. Re-Writing of Law No. 40/2004 by the National, Constitutional and European

Judges ................................................................................................................ 366