Legal relations in the field of human reproductive activity




human, reproductive activity, reproductive rights, legal regulation, abortion, society, state, pandemic threat


The article presents a comprehensive analysis of legal relations in the field of human reproductive activity by studying international and national legal regulation and changes in legal standards caused by the coronavirus crisis. Genesis of the legal regulation of human rights to reproduction has been studied and axiological and value determinants of legal relations in the field of reproductive activity have been determined. Current international standards are positioned as legal standards that affect the ability to determine the number of children, the intervals between their births, the provision of reproductive and sexual health, as well as the relationship regarding the preservation of their own genetic material.
It is motivated that international norms establish the autonomy of women for the right to perform abortion in particular and the right to individual determination of human reproductive function in general. In particular, it is substantiated that despite considerable scientific advances, especially in the molecular sphere, reproductive activity as a system requires multidimensional study, including its spatial and temporal definition. In addition, issues related to research in the field of stem cell biology, microfluidics, integration of unicellular transcriptomics, etc. are relevant today, which will help to determine the normal and healthy functioning of human reproductive function. In particular, it will allow studying external impacts and diseases, including endocrine disorders in the body and aging. The national legal norms concerning the right to abortion and other rights in this field are studied.
The article is based on the materials of a survey based on author’s questionnaires conducted to determine the level of realization of their reproductive rights by Ukrainian citizens during the pandemic caused by COVID-19. It is proved that the legal policy of states on reproductive rights during pandemic threats has transformed the possibility of free exercise of reproductive law. Today there is a problem of access to reproductive procedures, in particular due to their postponement indefinitely as non-priority, due to the inaccessibility of health authorities, social distance and the ban on crossing the state border, requirement for testing.

Author Biographies

M.M. Blikhar, Institute of Jurisprudence, Psychology and Innovative Education, National University “Lviv Polytechnic”, Lviv

Doctor of juridical sciences, professor, Department of Administrative and Informational Law

I.M. Zharovska, Institute of Jurisprudence, Psychology and Innovative Education, National University “Lviv Polytechnic”, Lviv

Doctor of juridical sciences, professor, Department of Theory of Law and Сonstitutionalism

B.B. Shandra, Uzhhorod National University, Uzhhorod

Candidate of juridical sciences, associate professor, Department of Philosophy

O.S. Zaiats, Lviv State University of Internal Affairs Ukraine, Lviv

Candidate of juridical sciences, associate professor, Department of Civil Law Disciplines


  1. Liu, X., Liu, B., Liu, S., et al. “Male cancer patient sperm cryopreservation for fertility preservation: 10-year monocentric experience.” Basic Clin Androl 31.24 (2021): 2–9. DOI: 10.1186/s12610-021-00140-w
  2. Zhytnik, L., Peters, M., Tilk, K., et al. “From late fatherhood to prenatal screening of monogenic disorders: evidence and ethical concerns.” Hum Reprod Update 27.6 (2021): 1056–85. DOI: 10.1093/humupd/dmab023
  3. Imrie, S., Lysons, J., Jadva, V., et al. “Parent-child relationship quality and child psychological adjustment in families created using egg donation: children’s perspectives at age 5 years.” Hum Reprod 265 (2021): 1–11. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/deab265
  4. Houston, B.J., Riera-Escamilla, A., Wyrwoll, M., et al. “A systematic review of the validated monogenic causes of human male infertility: 2020 update and a discussion of emerging gene-disease relationships.” Hum Reprod Update 28.1 (2022): 15–29. DOI: 10.1093/humupd/dmab030
  5. Ghieh, F., Barbotin, A.L., Leroy, C., et al. “Will whole-genome sequencing become the first-line genetic analysis for male infertility in the near future?” Basic Clin Androl 31.21 (2021): 1–5. DOI: 10.1186/s12610-021-00138-4
  6. Cotterrell, R. “Social Theory and Legal Theory: Contemporary Interactions.” Ann Rev Law Soc Sci 17.1 (2021): 15–29. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-102720-020551
  7. Blikhar, V., Zharovska, I., Ortynska, N. “Surrogacy in Ukraine: theoretical and applied problem: Literature review.” Reproductive Endocrinology 62 (2021): 22–8. DOI: 10.18370/2309-4117.2021.62.22-28
  8. United Nations. Report of the International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD). Cairo, 5–13 September 1994. New York (1994). Available from: [].
  9. World Health Organization. The World Health Report: 1999: Making a Difference. Geneva: WHO (1999). Available from: [].
  10. Chechersky, V.I. The right to reproduction in the system of fundamental human rights: constitutional and legal research: Thesis for the doctor degree of juridical sciences. Uzhhorod (2020): 112–8.
  11. Yavtushenko, O.V. “The concept and content of non-property reproductive rights of individuals.” J Eastern European Law 86 (2021): 83–9. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.4641390
  12. Agha, S., Williams, E. “Does the antenatal care visit represent a missed opportunity for increasing contraceptive use in Pakistan? An analysis of household survey data from Sindh province.” Health Policy Plan 31.3 (2016): 325–31. DOI: 10.1093/heapol/czv065
  13. Krajewska, A. “Connecting Reproductive Rights, Democracy, and the Rule of Law: Lessons from Poland in Times of COVID-19.” German Law J 22.6 (2021): 1072–97. DOI: 10.1017/glj.2021.56
  14. Kotni, M., Singer, E.O. “Human Rights and Reproductive Governance in Transnational Perspective.” Med Anthropol 38.2 (2019): 118–22. DOI: 10.1080/01459740.2018.1557164
  15. Karvatska, S., Blikhar, M., Huralenko, N. “Evolutionary trends in the interpretation of the European Court of Human Rights under the European Convention on Human Rights.” Cuestiones Políticas 39.68 (2021): 88–102. DOI: 10.46398/cuestpol.3968.04
  16. Kovalchuk, V., Zharovska, I., Gutiv, B., et al. “Human rights and positive obligations of the state.” Journal of the National Academy of Legal Sciences of Ukraine 3.28 (2021): 27–35. DOI: 10.37635/jnalsu.28(3).2021.27-35
  17. Federal Statistical Office of Switzerland. Pregnancy terminations in Switzerland in 2018. Available from: [].
  18. National Board of Health and Welfare. Swedish Ministry of Health. Statistics on abortion in 2018. Available from: [https://www.].
  19. Human Rights Committee. “K.L. v. Peru”, Commc’n No. 1153/2003, U. N. Doc. CCPR/C/85/D/1153/2003 (2005). Available from: [].
  20. Daftary-Kapur, T., Henderson, K.S., Zottoli, T.M. “COVID-19 exacerbates existing system factors that disadvantage defendants: Findings from a national survey of defense attorneys.” Law Hum Behav 45.2 (2021): 81–96. DOI: 10.1037/lhb0000442
  21. Raposo, V.L. “Big Brother knows that you are infected: wearable devices to track potential COVID-19 infections.” Law, Innovation and Technology 13.2 (2021): 422–38. DOI: 10.1080/17579961.2021.1977214
  22. Paes, L., Salim, N., Stofel, N., Fabbro, M. “Women and COVID-19: reflections for a sexual and reproductive rights-based obstetric care.” Rev Bras Enferm 74.1 (2021): 1–4. DOI: 10.1590/0034-7167-2020-1164
  23. Holtzworth-Munroe, A., Applegate, A.G., Beck, C.J., et al. “Intimate partner violence and family dispute resolution: 1-year follow-up findings from a randomized controlled trial comparing shuttle mediation, videoconferencing mediation, and litigation.” Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 27.4 (2021): 581–96. DOI: 10.1037/law0000309
  24. Li, K., Chen, G., Hou, H., et al. “Analysis of sex hormones and menstruation in COVID-19 women of child-bearing age.” Reprod Biomed Online 42 (2021): 260–7. DOI: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2020.09.020
  25. Jing, Y., Run-Qian, L., Hao-Ran, W., et al. “Potential influence of COVID-19/ACE2 on the female reproductive system.” Mol Hum Reprod 26 (2020): 367–73. DOI: 10.1093/molehr/gaaa030
  26. Antypkin, Y., Zhabchenko, I., Kovalenko, T., Lishchenko, I. “Pregnancy during a pandemic: perinatal effects of prolonged stress and ways of correction: Literature review.” Reproductive Endocrinology 60 (2021): 8–14. DOI: 10.18370/2309-4117.2021.60.8-14
  27. Chen, F., Zhu, S., Dai, Z., et al. “Effects of COVID-19 and mRNA vaccines on human fertility.” Hum Reprod 37.1 (2022): 5–13. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/deab238
  28. Riley, T., Sully, E., Ahmed, Z., Biddlecom, A. “Estimates of the potential impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on sexual and reproductive health in low- and middle-income countries.” Int Perspect Sex Reprod Health 46 (2020): 73–6. DOI: 10.1363/46e9020
  29. Blbmenfeld, Z. “Possible impact of COVID-19 on fertility and assisted reproductive technologies.” Fertil Steril 114 (2020): 56–7. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2020.05.023
  30. Krajewska, A. “Reimagining Reproductive Rights: Studying Invisible Subjects, Principles, and Structures of Transnational Reproductive Health Law.” J Med Law Ethics 9 (2019): 201–25. DOI: 10.7590/221354019x15678416128167
  31. Romanis, E., Parsons, J., Hodson, N. “COVID-19 and Reproductive Justice in Great Britain and the United States: Ensuring Access to Abortion Care During a Global Pandemic.” J Law Biosci 7.1 (2020): 1–23. DOI: 10.1093/jlb/lsaa027
  32. The National Assembly of Thailand. January 25, 2021. Act Amending the Criminal Code (No. 28), B. E., 2554, sec. 2. Available from: [].
  33. Brandão, E., Cabral, C. “Sexual and reproductive rights under attack: the advance of political and moral conservatism in Brazil.” Sex Reprod Health Matters 27.2 (2019): 76–86. DOI: 10.1080/26410397.2019.1669338
  34. Gomes, J., Mendes, C. “Confidentiality and Treatment Refusal: Conservative Shifts on Reproductive Rights by Brazilian Medical Boards.” Int J Gynecol Obstet 152 (2021): 459–64. DOI: 10.1002/ijgo.13510
  35. Shaw, D., Norman, W. “A tale of two countries: women’s reproductive rights in Ireland and the US.” BMJ 361 (2018): 1–2. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.k2471
  36. Brown, E., McCuskey, E. “Federalism, ERISA, and State Single-Payer Health Care.” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 168.2 (2020): 389–466. Available from: [].
  37. Pendleton, V., Saunders, J.B., Shlafer, R. “Corrections officers’ knowledge and perspectives of maternal and child health policies and programs for pregnant women in prison.” Health Justice 8.1 (2020): 2–12. DOI: 10.1186/s40352-019-0102-0
  38. Caicedo-Ochoa, Y., Rebellón-Sánchez, D., Peñaloza-Rallón, M., et al. “Effective Reproductive Number estimation for initial stage of COVID-19 pandemic in Latin American Countries.” Int J Infect Dis 95 (2020): 316–8. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijid.2020.04.069
  39. Moreau, C., Shankar, M., Glasier, A., et al. “Abortion regulation in Europe in the era of COVID-19: a spectrum of policy responses.” BMJ 47 (2021): 1–14. DOI: 10.1136/bmjsrh-2020-200724
  40. O’Brien, T.C., Tyler, T.R. “Authorities and communities: Can authorities shape cooperation with communities on a group level?” Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 26.1 (2020): 69–87. DOI: 10.1037/law0000202
  41. Turiansky, Y.I. Somatic human rights in the modern doctrine of constitutionalism: a theoretical and legal study: Thesis for the doctor degree of juridical sciences. Lviv (2020): 482 p.
  42. Cutting, E., Catt, S., Vollenhoven, B., et al. “The impact of COVID-19 mitigation measures on fertility patients and clinics around the world.” Reprod BioMed Online 27 (2021): 2–18. DOI: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2021.12.016



How to Cite

Blikhar, M., Zharovska, I., Shandra, B., & Zaiats, O. (2022). Legal relations in the field of human reproductive activity. REPRODUCTIVE ENDOCRINOLOGY, (63-64), 97–104.



Health care