Commentary
Legal perspectives on cross-border reproductive care

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2011.09.015Get rights and content

Abstract

Global cross-border reproductive care (CBRC), and the challenges accompanying it, are here to stay. A recent issue of this journal devoted to CBRC provides an extraordinary array of insights into multiple facets, with a focus on the legal dimensions of practices by restrictive countries such as Turkey and Italy. The articles identify restrictive laws that challenge and create vulnerabilities for both citizens and providers involved in CBRC, and call instead for more modest and nuanced legislation and the closing paper presents a thoughtful and ambitious outline for a future research agenda. This commentary reflects on the implications of these legal dimensions, including their applicability to countries with more permissive CBRC policies, discusses three specific examples of legal concerns that have arisen in the USA and identifies numerous legal issues meriting future study. Together with the nuanced, more modest legislation recommended for restrictive countries, consistent legal and judicial principles for CBRC in permissive countries would respect varying perspectives on family building while attempting to address a central legal concern of CBRC, the protection of families, third-parties and providers. Any future agenda should include research and recommendations on the legal dimensions of CBRC in both restrictive and permissive countries.

References (5)

There are more references available in the full text version of this article.

Cited by (13)

  • Bioethical issues and legal frameworks of surrogacy: A global perspective about the right to health and dignity

    2021, European Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Reproductive Biology
    Citation Excerpt :

    Unfortunately, the signing of a convention would leave the bioethical discrepancies unresolved, favouring only agreements between permissive nations. For this reason, a principle of “soft law” is considered inapplicable as it is inadequate to solve the specific problems of the matter [117–123]. Therefore, national and international law should guarantee global regulatory coverage ensuring the freedom of each individual country to decide whether to ban or allow surrogacy.

  • Cross-border reproductive care in the USA: Who comes, why do they come, what do they purchase?

    2020, Reproductive Biomedicine and Society Online
    Citation Excerpt :

    The majority of these out-of-country patients/clients seek standard IVF (as do most US residents); however, foreign patients/clients are more likely than US residents to utilize complicated (and socially controversial) ART services, such as compensated oocyte donation, commercial surrogacy and PGS/PGD (Hughes and DeJean, 2010; Levine et al., 2017). The desire to access services unavailable in home domiciles, to circumvent legal restrictions or bureaucratic hurdles, and to ‘speed up’ a lengthy process have been cited as the primary reasons why people seek CBRC (Ahuja, 2015; Crockin, 2011; Gurtin and Inhorn, 2011). As others have noted, the political, social, legal and cultural context of the sending country shapes the particular services accessed by CBRC clients (Martin, 2015; Stuvoy, 2018).

  • Intended parents' motivations and information and support needs when seeking extraterritorial compensated surrogacy

    2015, Reproductive BioMedicine Online
    Citation Excerpt :

    The term ‘cross-border reproductive care’ (CBRC) is used to describe the practice of couples or individuals crossing national or state borders to access assisted reproductive treatment that is illegal, unaffordable or unavailable in their home jurisdiction (Crockin, 2011).

  • Motivations and experiences of patients seeking cross-border reproductive care: The Australian and New Zealand context

    2014, Fertility and Sterility
    Citation Excerpt :

    At present there is jurisdictional variation across states of Australia on matters of donor conception and with regard to surrogacy arrangements, each with substantive requirements and preconception preparatory processes (30, 32). From a legal perspective only 32.6% of respondents in our study reported accessing any form of legal advice with respect to their overseas treatment decisions, further highlighting duty of care issues and raising the potential for legal challenges and ramifications (14, 15). For instance, those participants partaking in an international surrogacy arrangement may face obstacles with regard to defining their legal relationship with the resulting child.

View all citing articles on Scopus
View full text