scholarly journals Direito à Não Discriminação e à Verdade Biológica dos Nascidos por PMA em Portugal e no Brasil

2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (13) ◽  
pp. 387-405
Author(s):  
Shirlei Castro Menezes Mota ◽  
Stela Marcos de Almeida Neves Barbas

This study discusses issues related to Medically Assisted Procreation, particularly about heterologous artificial insemination – using genetic material from third parties – and “replacement pregnancy” in Portugal and Brazil. Therefore, it addresses the right to “biological truth” for those born by PMA and non-discrimination in the use of genetic material, focusing on respect for the dignity of the human person. It is questioned how advances in science in this area can lead, in the case of PMA, to the choice of “perfect” embryos, and we start from the hypothesis that this leads to “genetic eugenics.” Methodologically, this is an exploratory bibliographical review. According to the Portuguese standard, the PMA has as beneficiaries the hetero couple, the single woman and women who are married or in a de facto union who can even have a “shared pregnancy”, but the “replacement pregnancy” is only done exceptionally and is not donor secrecy allowed. In Brazil, if it is free and with the help of relatives up to the fourth degree, regardless of the peer’s sexual orientation and maintaining the confidentiality of the donor, the “replacement pregnancy” is guaranteed to everyone.

1995 ◽  
Vol 35 (3) ◽  
pp. 197-200
Author(s):  
S Gromb ◽  
J Beylot ◽  
H P Lazarini

In the course of preparing a medico-legal report in civil proceedings instituted by a couple contaminated by HIV, the case of Mr B. was brought to our attention. At the end of 1984 Mr B. had a serious accident in consequence of which he received a number of blood transfusions. The post-transfusion inquiry established blood contamination. Several years later (in 1990), and for reasons closely related to the above accident, Mr B. and his wife were having difficulty in having a child. They decided to resort to intraconjugal artificial insemination (IAI) first through a private laboratory and then through a CSCOS (Centre for the Study and Conservation of Human Ova and Sperm). In 1992, Mr B. and his wife were both found to be HIV positive; the infection was ascribed to the IAI, as the most plausible cause. In the face of such dramatic events, we wondered why neither the laboratory nor the CSCOS had checked whether the couple were HIV positive. Reflecting on this led us: (a) to make an inventory of the different organizations and facilities empowered to manipulate sperm for medically assisted procreation (MAP); (b) to investigate their obligations in terms of the prevention and control of specific diseases.


2016 ◽  
Vol 61 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Carlo Casini

Il contributo è dato dall’esame e dal commento della Relazione del Ministro della Salute sull’attuazione della Legge 40 del 19 febbraio 2004 “Norme in materia di procreazione medicalmente assistita”, presentata, al Parlamento ai sensi dell’art. 15, comma 2 della legge stessa. Il Movimento per la Vita Italiano (MpVI) per valutare i dati di volta in volta riportati nei documenti ministeriali ha finora presentato quattro Rapporti al Parlamento: il primo nel 2007, il secondo nell'aprile 2009, il terzo a luglio 2011 e il quarto – oggetto del presente articolo – nell’agosto 2012. L’attenzione della Relazione ministeriale è rivolta soprattutto alla realizzazione del desiderio degli adulti di avere un figlio, in base allo scopo dichiarato dalla legge di “favorire la soluzione dei problemi riproduttivi derivanti dalla sterilità o dalla infertilità umana”. Perciò la descrizione del percorso seguito dalle varie tecniche e gli incroci tra i vari dati a disposizione fanno riferimento prevalente alla coppia adulta. Tuttavia, si sottolinea nella Rapporto del “MpVI” non si deve sottovalutare l’art. 1 della legge indica l’altro fondamentale obiettivo della legge e cioè quello di: “assicurare i diritti di tutti i soggetti coinvolti compreso il concepito”. I soggetti di cui è doveroso tener conto non sono solo gli adulti desiderosi di avere un figlio, ma anche i figli fin dal primo momento della loro esistenza (proprio l’evento che le nuove tecniche intendono determinare), cioè fin dal momento del concepimento. L’articolato, documentato e ricco Rapporto del MpVI richiama sinteticamente l’impianto della normativa – seriamente alterato dalla sentenza costituzionale 151/2009 – e gli interventi giudiziari che lo riguardano; rimarca con forza la grande differenza – in ordine alla protezione del diritto alla vita – tra la morte dell’embrione dopo il trasferimento nelle vie genitali della donna e la sua soppressione deliberata, diretta, concordata, che avviene quando l’embrione, non trasferito nelle vie genitali della donna viene selezionato, reso oggetto di sperimentazione, distrutto, congelato; contesta la teoria del c.d. “diritto affievolito” con riferimento al diritto alla vita del concepito; si sofferma sulla necessità di rimuovere le cause impeditive della procreazione alternative alla procreazione artificiale (a questo proposito viene segnalata la significativa esperienza dell’Istituto Scientifico Internazionale Paolo VI di ricerca sulla fertilità e infertilità umana operante presso il Policlinico “A. Gemelli” di Roma dal 2003). Infine, il rapporto si conclude con alcune domande e proposte di lavoro rivolte al Ministro della Salute. Non vi è dubbio, comunque, che quella dello statuto giuridico dell’embrione umano non deve essere emarginata nella relazione annuale del Ministro: “se nell’attuazione della L. 40/04 vogliamo raggiungere un adeguato bilanciamento tra l’obiettivo di superare la sterilità e l’infertilità da un lato e il rispetto della vita dall’altro, occorre assolutamente valorizzare il principio dell’art. 1 che qualifica soggetto titolare di diritti il concepito, al pari degli altri soggetti coinvolti nella vicenda procreativa”. ---------- This article is the review and comment of the Report of the Italian Minister of Health on the implementation of Law 40, February 19, 2004 on medically assisted procreation, submitted to the Parliament under article 15 paragraph 2. The Italian Pro-Life Movement (MpVI) to evaluate the data from time to time within ministerial documents has up to now submitted four reports to Parliament: the first in 2007, the second in 2009, the third in July 2011 and the fourth – subject of this article – in August 2012. The Ministerial Report focuses mainly on the realization of the desire of adults to have a child, according to the stated purpose of the law of “helping to resolve problems arising from human sterility or infertility”. Therefore the description of the path followed by various techniques and the connections between the various available data refer mainly to the adult couple. However, it is observed in the Report of the (MpVI), we shouldn’t neglect the article 1 of the Law indicating another key objective of the same Law which is: “to ensure the rights of all subjects involved including the human embryo”. So, the subjects we must take into account are not only the adults longing to have a child, but also the children from the first moment of their existence (just the event that the new techniques intend to be determined), that is, from the moment of conception. The articulated, documented and rich Report MpVI recalls briefly the system of Law – seriously altered by constitutional judgment 151/2009 – and the judicial interventions concerning it; it strongly emphasizes the great difference – as for the protection of the right to life of human embryo – between the death of the embryo after transfer into the genital tracts of women and his deliberate killing, direct, agreed that occurs when the embryo is not transferred to the genital tract of women is selected, but he is destroyed, made the object of experimentation, frozen, selected; it desputes the theory of the so-called “Weakened Law” dealing with the right to life of the unborn child; it focuses on the need to remove the causes hindering human procreation alternative to artificial procreation (in this regard is reported significant experience of the International Scientific Institute Paul VI on research on fertility and infertility human, working at the Policlinico Gemelli in Rome since 2003). Finally, the Report of MpVI concludes with some questions and work proposals addressed to the Minister of Health. There is no doubt, however, that the legal status of the human embryo should not be neglected in the annual Report of the Minister: “if about the implementation of the L. 40/2004 we want to achieve an appropriate balance between the objective of overcoming infertility and infertility on the one hand and respect for life on the other, it is essential to enhance the principle of article 1 that qualifies human embryo subject holder of human rights, like the other subjects involved in the medically assisted procreation”.


2020 ◽  
pp. 17-21
Author(s):  
A. Dyuka

France is one of the rare countries which implements the fundamental mechanism for improving legislation on Bioethics. Since 1994, every five years bioethics laws are revised in order to follow medical advances (medicine), authorize new practices and impose restrictions, expressly in order to guarantee the fundamental principles laid down by the Law N94-653 of 29 July 1994 (dignity, primacy of the human person, inviolability, integrity and non-ownership of the human body and its elements). Medically assisted procreation (ART) is one of the fields under regular review. This article outlines the French law on ART and surrogacy. In spite of the fact that surrogacy is prohibited in France, the infertile couples seek surrogacy outside of the country. Over the last few years, under pressure from the ECHR and expressly to protect child interests, the French relaxed their position in order to recognize the affiliation of children born from surrogacy. The current revision of bioethical laws aims, among other things, to open up access to ART for all women (including single women and lesbian couples) and to simplify the recognition in France of the affiliation of children born by surrogacy abroad.


2015 ◽  
Vol 64 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Carlo Casini

La Legge 40 del 19 febbraio 2004 che regola la PMA nel suo art. 1 indica gli scopi perseguiti: il superamento della sterilità delle coppie e la garanzia dei diritti di tutti i soggetti coinvolti compreso il concepito. Le relazioni ministeriali sull’attuazione della legge riferiscono a ogni anno sulla attuazione delle nuove tecniche, ma esclusivamente con riferimento al primo dei due obiettivi ora indicati. È doveroso, verificare se anche il secondo scopo è stato perseguito e in quale misura. Ciò è divenuto particolarmente urgente dopo le sentenze costituzionali che hanno reso lecita la generazione soprannumeraria di embrioni, la PMA eterologa, il ricorso alla PMA anche da parte di coppie non sterili ma portatrici di malattie potenzialmente ereditarie. Nell’impossibilità di modificare le sentenze costituzionali il cui effetto più negativo consiste nell’accumulo di embrioni congelati e rimasti privi di un progetto parentale, lo studio propone una serie di strumenti per limitare la lesione dei diritti del concepito. In particolare si propone che la forma eterologa della PMA possa attuarsi soltanto utilizzando gli embrioni già formati congelati e abbandonati. Viene ipotizzata anche una possibile obbligatoria rappresentanza processuale dei concepiti nelle vicende giudiziarie in cui i loro diritti sono in discussione; si argomenta contro l’anonimato dei c.d. donatori di gameti differenziando il regime del diritto a conoscere le proprie origini nelle diverse situazioni dell’adozione e del parto di donne che non vogliono essere nominate; viene auspicato l’intervento ministeriale per garantire che la generazione soprannumeraria avvenga soltanto nei casi in cui essa sia “strettamente necessaria” così come la legge continua a richiedere (art. 13); si dimostrava la netta differenza tra la diagnosi genetica pre-impianto e la diagnosi prenatale con riferimento alla tutela del concepito. ---------- The Italian Law n. 40 of February, 19, 2004 (Rules governing medically assisted fertilization), in its Article 1 focuses on two goals: to remedy reproductive problems arising as a result of human sterility or infertility and guarantee the rights of all the subjects concerned, the human embryo included. Every year on the ground of Art. 15, the Minister of Health draws up a report regarding the implementation of the Italian Law n. 40/2004, but only the first of the two goal is taken into account. Therefore, it is necessary understand if the second goal has been pursued and to what extent. Reflecting on this has become particularly urgent after the constitutional decisions that made lawful the generation of supernumerary embryos, the heterologous fertilization, the resort to “medically assisted procreation” by non-sterile couples but potentially carriers of hereditary diseases. Unfortunately, it isn’t possible to change the constitutional rulings whose most negative effect is the storage of cryopreserved embryos and their abandon without a parental project. In the light of this situation, the paper here summarized proposes a set of instruments in order to limit injuries to the rights of the human embryos. Notably, it is suggested that the heterologous fertilization may be implemented only by using the frozen and abandoned embryos already generated. It is also hypothesized a possible mandatory procedural representation of the human embryos in the legal proceedings in which their rights are debated; it is argued against the anonymity of the so-called “gamete donors” (as to this regard the rules on the right to know their origins are different depending on the different situations like adoption and childbirth of women who do not want to be named). Moreover the Ministerial intervention is called for ensuring that the supernumerary generation of human embryos is realized only when it is “strictly necessary” as the law continues to require (art. 13). Finally it is showed the clear difference between the genetic pre-implantation diagnosis and prenatal diagnosis with reference to the protection of the human beings at the beginning of their life.


2009 ◽  
Vol 160 (8) ◽  
pp. 228-231
Author(s):  
Hansruedi Walther

A forest owner can only commercialize non-wood products and services within a tightly restricted market niche. On account of free access being permitted to the forest it is impossible to deny to third parties the consumption of many non-wood products and services: everybody has the right to be in the forest for recreation. As a result many non-wood services cannot be commercialized by the forest owner, or not exclusively. What would seem unthinkable elsewhere on private property seems to be taken for granted in the forest: third parties may take products from the forest and even sell them without being the forest owners. For certain nonwood services or products, such as the installation of rope parks or for burial in the forest, the organizer must conclude an agreement with the forest owner or draw up a contract for servitude or benefit. In addition, for these activities a permit from the Forestry Department is necessary. On the other hand, for an itinerant school class or for the production of forest honey neither a binding regulation with the forest owner nor a permit from the Forestry service is necessary, provided that no constructions are erected in the forest. The only exclusive right which remains to the forest owner, besides the sale of his property, is the exploitation of his trees within the legal framework.


Author(s):  
Ly Tayseng

This chapter gives an overview of the law on contract formation and third party beneficiaries in Cambodia. Much of the discussion is tentative since the new Cambodian Civil Code only entered into force from 21 December 2011 and there is little case law and academic writing fleshing out its provisions. The Code owes much to the Japanese Civil Code of 1898 and, like the latter, does not have a requirement of consideration and seldom imposes formal requirements but there are a few statutory exceptions from the principle of freedom from form. For a binding contract, the agreement of the parties is required and the offer must be made with the intention to create a legally binding obligation and becomes effective once it reaches the offeree. The new Code explicitly provides that the parties to the contract may agree to confer a right arising under the contract upon a third party. This right accrues directly from their agreement; it is not required that the third party declare its intention to accept the right.


Author(s):  
Gisela Hirschmann

How can international organizations (IOs) like the United Nations (UN) and their implementing partners be held accountable if their actions and policies violate fundamental human rights? Political scientists and legal scholars have shed a much-needed light on the limits of traditional accountability when it comes to complex global governance. However, conventional studies on IO accountability fail to systematically analyze a related, puzzling empirical trend: human rights violations that occur in the context of global governance do not go unnoticed altogether; they are investigated and sanctioned by independent third parties. This book puts forward the concept of pluralist accountability, whereby third parties hold IOs and their implementing partners accountable for human rights violations. We can expect pluralist accountability to evolve if a competitive environment stimulates third parties to enact accountability and if the implementing actors are vulnerable to human rights demands. Based on a comprehensive study of UN-mandated operations in Afghanistan, Bosnia, and Kosovo, the European Union Troika’s austerity policy, and global public–private health partnerships in India, this book demonstrates how competition and human rights vulnerability shape the evolution of pluralist accountability in response to diverse human rights violations, such as human trafficking, the violation of the rights of detainees, economic rights, and the right to consent in clinical trials. While highlighting the importance of studying alternative accountability mechanisms, this book also argues that pluralist accountability should not be regarded as a panacea for IOs’ legitimacy problems, as it is often less legalized and might cause multiple accountability disorder.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marie Audier‐Bourgain ◽  
Thierry Baubet ◽  
Alexandra Pham‐Scottez ◽  
Maurice Corcos ◽  
Isabelle Nicolas

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document