Medically Assisted Procreation: European Legislation and Ensuing Ethical Issues



The history of artificial fertilization shows that such techniques was originally meant as therapy for infertility in heterosexual couples because the element of biological lineage is no longer the foundational value on which to base procreation. Medically assisted procreation is by now a deeply rooted phenomenon in modern society, and appears to be constantly growing [1].


Medically assisted procreation Informed consent Heterologous fertilization Right to know genetic origins Mitochondrial donation European legislative framework 


  1. 1.
    Ognibene F. Boom di “figli dell’eterologa” e record di bimbi concepiti in provetta.
  2. 2.
    Daar Judith F. Accessing reproductive technologies: invisible barriers, indelible harms. Berkeley J Gend Law Justice. 2008;23:18–82.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Jouve de la Barreda N. Biomedical perspective of the surrogate motherhood. Cuad Bioet. 2017;28(93):153–62.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Aparisi Miralles Á. Surrogate motherhood and woman dignity. Cuad Bioet. 2017;28(93):163–75.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Frati P, Busardò FP, Vergallo GM, Pacchiarotti A, Fineschi V. Surrogate motherhood: where Italy is now and where Europe is going. Can the genetic mother be considered the legal mother? J Forensic Legal Med. 2015;30:4–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Angeli E. The challenge on abortion and assisted reproductive technologies in Europe. Comp Eur Polit. 2009;7(1):56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Nielsen I. Legal consensus and divergence in Europe in the area of assisted conception—room for harmonisation? In: Evans D, Pickering N, (a cura di). Creating the child. The Ethics, Law and Practice of Assisted Procreation, The Hague; 1996. p. 305.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    White & Case LLP. European laws governing in vitro fertilization. New York; 2009.
  9. 9.
    Zaami S, Busardò FP. Elective egg freezing: can you really turn back the clock? Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2015;19(19):3537–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Montanari Vergallo G. Negligence and embryo protection: a new frontier for medical law? Med Law. 2014;33:2–13.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Montanari Vergallo G, Zaami S, Bruti V, Signore F, Marinelli E. How the legislation on medically assisted procreation has evolved in Italy. Med Law. 2017;36(2):5–28.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Malvasi A, Signore F, Napoletano S, et al. 2014-2017. How medically assisted reproduction changed in Italy. A short comparative synthesis with European countries. Clin Ter. 2017;168(4):e248–52.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Loi sur la bioéthique n. 2011—814 del 7 luglio 2011, Assemblee Nationale, Rapport n. 3111 fait au nom de la Commission spéciale chargée d’examiner le projet de loi relatif à la bioéthique (n. 2911) par J. Leonetti, 26 gennaio 2011, Vol. 1, p. 17.
  14. 14.
    Conseil D’Etat, La révision des lois de bioéthique. Etude adoptée par l’assemblée générale plénière le 9 avril 2009, La documentation française, Parigi, 2009, 53.
  15. 15.
    Loi relative à la procreation médicalementassistée et à la destination des embryons surnuméraires et de gametes.
  16. 16.
    Jiménez Munoz FJ. La reproduccion asistida y su régimen jurìdico. Madrid; 2012.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Luna Serrano A. Comparacion en materia de filiation por reproduccion asistida entre los derechos espanol e italiano, in Icade, Revista cuatrimestral de las Facultades de derecho y Ciencias Economicas y Empresariales. 2012;87:170.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Instituto Bernabeu. Legislation in Spain and Europe. Accessed 20 July 2015.
  19. 19.
    Augst C. Regulating dangerous futures: the German Embryo Protection Act of 1990—legislation in risk society. Soc Leg Stud. 2000;9(2):205–26.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Deutsch E. Assisted procreation in German law. In: Evans D, Pickering N, editors. Creating the child: the ethics, law, and practice of assisted procreation. Neil Pickering: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers; 1996. p. 333.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Brown E. The dilemmas of German bioethics. J Technol Soc. 2004;5:37–53.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Arnold R. Questioni giuridiche in merito alla fecondazione artificiale nel diritto tedesco. In: Casonato C, Frosini TE (a cura di). La fecondazione assistita nel diritto comparato. Torino; 2006. p. 5.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Parliament of the UK. Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990.
  24. 24.
    Decree 28th December 2016, n. 265.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lo B, Chou V, Cedars MI, Gates E. Informed consent in human oocyte, embryo, and embryonic stem cell research. Fertil Steril. 2004;82(3):559–63.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hill D, Jaeger A. Informed consent in embryo research. Reprod Biomed Online. 2005;10(Suppl 2):40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Nelson E, Mykitiuk R, Nisker J. Informed consent to donate embryos for research purposes. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2008;30(9):824–36.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Montanari Vergallo G, Zaami S, Di Luca NM, et al. The conscientious objection: debate on emergency contraception. Clin Ter. 2017;168(2):113–9.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Allan S. Commercial surrogate and child: ethical issues, regulatory approaches, and suggestions for change. Working paper May 30, 2014.
  30. 30.
    Ergas Y. Babies without borders: human rights, human dignity, and the regulation of international commercial surrogacy. Emory Int Law Rev. 2013;27:124–5.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Ravitsky V. The right to know one’s genetic origins and cross-border medically assisted reproduction. Isr J Health Policy Res. 2017;6:3.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Zaami S. Assisted heterologous fertilization and the right of donor conceived children to know their biological origins. Clin Ter. 2018;169(1):39–43.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Leighton K. The right to know genetic origins: a harmful value. Hast Cent Rep. 2014;44(4):5–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Montanari Vergallo G, Marinelli E, di Luca NM, Zaami S. Gamete donation: are children entitled to know their genetic origins? A comparison of opposing views. The Italian state of affairs. Eur J Health Law. 2018;25:1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    De Melo-Martín I. The ethics of anonymous gamete donation: is there a right to know one’s genetic origins? Hast Cent Rep. 2014;44(2):28–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Ravitsky V. Autonomous choice and the right to know one’s genetic origins. Hast Cent Rep. 2014;44(2):36–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Gong D, Liu YL, Zheng Z, Tian YF, Li Z. An overview on ethical issues about sperm donation. Asian J Androl. 2009;11:645–52.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Tachibana M. Mitochondrial gene replacement in primate offspring and embryonic stem cells. Nature. 2009;461(7262):367–72.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Bredenoord AL, Braude P. Ethics of mitochondrial gene replacement: from bench to bedside. Br Med J. 2010;341:c6021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Nuffield Council on Bioethics. Novel techniques for the prevention of mitochondrial DNA disorders: an ethical review. 2012.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Graumann S, Haker H. Some conceptual and ethical comments on egg cell nuclear transfer. Politics Life Sci. 1998;17(1):16–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (House of Parliament), Preventing Mitochondrial Disease. p. 3–23.
  43. 43.
    Anton A. Ethical issues of new techniques to avoid mitochondrial disease, Ethics and Law Advisory Committee (HFEA), 8 giugno 2011, paper number ELAC (06/11)1. p. 1–13.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Taylor F., Three-parent embryos for mitochondrial disorders. Christian Medical Fellowship Files, 51, Summer 2013.
  45. 45.
    Baylis F. The ethics of creating children with three genetic parents. Reprod Biomed Online. 2013;26:531–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Anatomical, Histological, Forensic and Orthopaedic SciencesSapienza University of RomeRomeItaly
  2. 2.Clinic for Gynecology and ObstetricsClinical Center of SerbiaBelgradeSerbia

Personalised recommendations