» Articles » PMID: 27449932

Italian Law on Medically Assisted Reproduction: Do Women's Autonomy and Health Matter?

Overview
Publisher Biomed Central
Date 2016 Jul 25
PMID 27449932
Citations 12
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

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. 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.

Citing Articles

Mapping Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications (ELSI) of gamete donation.

Alon I, Cassou M, Golan O, Ravitsky V J Assist Reprod Genet. 2024; 41(11):2855-2875.

PMID: 39183224 PMC: 11621250. DOI: 10.1007/s10815-024-03229-z.


A comparison of assisted human reproduction (AHR) regulation in Ireland with other developed countries.

McDermott O, Ronan L, Butler M Reprod Health. 2022; 19(1):62.

PMID: 35248065 PMC: 8898507. DOI: 10.1186/s12978-022-01359-0.


An Update on Planned Oocyte Cryopreservation (POC) in Italy: Medical, Epidemiological and Legal Consideration.

Cremonese J, Marcon M, Oppi L, Paletti G, Romolo V, Tozzo P Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022; 19(4).

PMID: 35206556 PMC: 8872062. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19042371.


Cross-border reproductive healthcare attitudes and behaviours among women living in Florence, Italy.

Meier S, Ramos-Ortiz J, Basille K, DEramo A, Diaconu A, Flores L BMC Health Serv Res. 2022; 22(1):238.

PMID: 35189893 PMC: 8862247. DOI: 10.1186/s12913-022-07621-2.


The need for regulation in the practice of human assisted reproduction in Mexico. An overview of the regulations in the rest of the world.

Lopez A, Betancourt M, Casas E, Retana-Marquez S, Juarez-Rojas L, Casillas F Reprod Health. 2021; 18(1):241.

PMID: 34838077 PMC: 8627078. DOI: 10.1186/s12978-021-01293-7.


References
1.
Pennings G, de Wert G . Evolving ethics in medically assisted reproduction. Hum Reprod Update. 2003; 9(4):397-404. DOI: 10.1093/humupd/dmg031. View

2.
Inhorn M, Shrivastav P, Patrizio P . Assisted reproductive technologies and fertility "tourism": examples from global Dubai and the Ivy League. Med Anthropol. 2012; 31(3):249-65. DOI: 10.1080/01459740.2011.596495. View

3.
Clarke H . Italy approves controversial legislation on fertility treatment. Lancet. 2004; 362(9401):2076. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(03)15157-4. View

4.
Levi Setti P, Albani E, Cesana A, Novara P, Zannoni E, Baggiani A . Italian Constitutional Court modifications of a restrictive assisted reproduction technology law significantly improve pregnancy rate. Hum Reprod. 2010; 26(2):376-81. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/deq342. View

5.
Frith L . Gamete donation and anonymity: the ethical and legal debate. Hum Reprod. 2001; 16(5):818-24. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/16.5.818. View