The consequences of SH and Others v. Austria for legislation on gamete donation in Europe: an ethical analysis of the European Court of Human Rights judgments

被引:12
作者
Van Hoof, Wannes [1 ]
Pennings, Guido [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Ghent, Bioeth Inst Ghent, B-9000 Ghent, Belgium
关键词
ethics; gamete donation; legal diversity; margin of appreciation; patient rights; proportionality; PLURALISM;
D O I
10.1016/j.rbmo.2012.05.016
中图分类号
R71 [妇产科学];
学科分类号
100211 ;
摘要
There is a high degree of legal diversity within Europe concerning medically assisted reproduction. This is in direct opposition to the project of harmonization of the European institutions. This paper takes a closer look at the different national interpretations of the European Convention on Human Rights with regard to gamete donation. In the case of S. H. and Others v. Austria, the European Court of Human Rights originally condemned the prohibitions on egg donation and sperm donation for the purpose of IVF. The court judged the law to be incoherent and disproportionate. This decision was recently reversed on appeal based on the margin of appreciation doctrine. This paper critically reviews the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights and analyses what this case means for the future of legislation on medically assisted reproduction in Europe. It is concluded that legal diversity and cross-border reproductive care will persist and that the court failed to protect European patients from arbitrary interference with their right to procreation. (C) 2012, Reproductive Healthcare Ltd. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:665 / 669
页数:5
相关论文
共 7 条
[1]   Reproductive tourism as moral pluralism in motion [J].
Pennings, G .
JOURNAL OF MEDICAL ETHICS, 2002, 28 (06) :337-341
[2]  
Rozakis ChristosL., 2005, TULANE LAW REV, V80, P257
[3]   Cross border reproductive care in six European countries [J].
Shenfield, F. ;
de Mouzon, J. ;
Pennings, G. ;
Ferraretti, A. P. ;
Andersen, A. Nyboe ;
de Wert, G. ;
Goossens, V. .
HUMAN REPRODUCTION, 2010, 25 (06) :1361-1368
[4]  
Smet S., 2010, STRASBOURG OBSE 0423
[5]   The pluralism problem in cross-border reproductive care [J].
Storrow, R. F. .
HUMAN REPRODUCTION, 2010, 25 (12) :2939-2943
[6]  
Timmer A., 2011, STRASBOURG OBSE 1109
[7]   Extraterritorial Laws for Cross-Border Reproductive Care: The Issue of Legal Diversity [J].
Van Hoof, Wannes ;
Pennings, Guido .
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF HEALTH LAW, 2012, 19 (02) :187-200