Surrogacy in Ukraine: theoretical and applied problem

Literature review

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18370/2309-4117.2021.62.22-28

Keywords:

surrogacy, assisted reproductive technologies, fourth generation of human rights

Abstract

The article analyzes the Ukrainian experience of carrying out the procedure of surrogacy.
The modern world does not stand still constant progress in all spheres of human activity has given rise to a large number of new rights that have entered the fourth generation of human rights. Surrogacy belongs to the newest generation of human rights, despite the fact that it has a long history of its origin and development, which can be traced back to biblical texts, the laws of King Hammurabi and others. The use of another woman’s womb was acceptable for couples who could not conceive their own child. It clearly illustrates the existence of surrogacy, which has more than 3,800 years.
The article analyzes the progressive development of modern technology of IVF, which has opened new opportunities for humanity in case of infertility to have biologically native children. The main problems that exist in the research institute, which are related to each participant of the procedure, are highlighted. The analysis of foreign judicial practice is carried out, which allows to form certain conclusions that will have practical application in domestic realities. The legal regulation of surrogacy is considered, the need to change the age requirement for a surrogate mother and the requirements for the presence of a native child for the future surrogate mother are emphasized. Today, this institution is of particular importance to humanity, as there are many cases of infertility among couples who want to have a child and surrogacy becomes the only chance for them to have a biologically native child.
The urgency of the outlined topic is intensified due to the fact that Ukraine has become a real center of surrogacy due to the availability of the procedure and loyal legislation, which allows for an altruistic and commercial form of its conduct. However, the low level of regulation of surrogacy has had a negative impact at all stages of the procedure and needs immediate improvement in order to preserve the interests of each participant, but above all, the child born with this method of assisted reproductive technology. The importance of all the issues outlined is also intensified in connection with the coronavirus pandemic, which has brought many problems into the research institute.

Author Biographies

V.S. Blikhar, Institute of Management, Psychology and Security of the Lviv State University of Internal Affairs, Lviv

Doctor of philosophical sciences, professor, director

I.M. Zharovska, National University “Lviv Polytechnic”, Lviv

Doctor of juridical sciences, professor, Department of Theory, History and Philosophy of the Law

N.V. Ortynska, National University “Lviv Polytechnic”, Lviv

Doctor of juridical sciences, professor, Department of Theory, History and Philosophy of the Law

References

  1. Adeline, А. “Surrogacy and Limitations to Freedom of Contract: Toward Being More Fully Human.” Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy 41.3 (2018): 754–811. Available from: [https://ssrn.com/abstract=3186242].
  2. European Court of Human Rights. AVIS CONSULTATIF (2019). Available from: [https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{"itemid":["003-6380431-8364345"]}].
  3. Aznar, J., Peris, M.M. “Gestational Surrogacy: Current View.” Linacre Quarterly 86.1 (2019): 56–67. DOI: 10.1177/0024363919830840
  4. Beier, K., Wöhlke, S. “An ethical comparison of living kidney donation and surrogacy: understanding the relational dimension.” Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine 14 (2019): 2–9. DOI: 10.1186/s13010-019-0080-9
  5. Blazier, J., Janssens, R. “Regulating the international surrogacy market: the ethics of commercial surrogacy in the Netherlands and India.” Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 23 (2020): 621–30. DOI: 10.1007/s11019-020-09976-x
  6. Cabra, R., Alduncin, A., Cabra, J., et al. “Gestational surrogacy. Medical, psychological and legal aspects: 9 years of experience in Mexico.” Hum Reprod Open 1 (2018). DOI: 10.1093/hropen/hox029
  7. Cour de Cassation. Available from: [https://www.courdecassation.fr/jurisprudence_2/communiques_presse_8004/etranger_transcription_9576/].
  8. Dickenson, D., van Beers, B. “Surrogacy: New Challenges to Law and Ethics.” The New Bioethics 26.4 (2020): 293–7. DOI: 10.1080/20502877.2020.1835205
  9. Ellenbogen, A., Feldberg, D., Lokshin, V. “Surrogacy – a worldwide demand. Implementation and ethical considerations.” Gynecol Reprod Endocrinol Metab 2.2 (2021): 66–73.
  10. Fronek, P. “Current perspectives on the ethics of selling international surrogacy support services.” Medicolegal and Bioethics 8 (2018): 11–20. DOI: 10.2147/MB.S134090
  11. Fulfer, K. “A Partial Defense of the Non-Commercialization of Surrogacy.” Can J Bioethics 3.3 (2020): 88–99. DOI: 10.7202/1073783ar
  12. Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine. “Fundamentals of Legislation of Ukraine on Health Care.” Bulletin of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine 4.19 (1993).
  13. Hardin, H.T., Hardin, D.H. “On the Vicissitudes of Early Primary Surrogate Mothering II: Loss of the Surrogate Mother and Arrest of Mourning.” J Am Psychoanalytic Association 48.4 (2018): 1229–58. DOI: 10.1177/00030651000480041001
  14. Hevia, M. “Surrogacy, Privacy, and the American Convention on Human Rights.” J Law Biosci 5.2 (2018): 375–97. DOI: 10.1093/jlb/lsy013
  15. Jouan, M. “The moral acceptability of surrogacy: Using what can be learned from pregnancy for oneself to achieve greater justice.” Travail, genre et sociétés 38 (2017): 35–52. DOI: 10.3917/tgs.038.0035
  16. Konečná, H., Svatoš, R. “Issues in determining parenthood in “surrogacy”.” Human Affairs 29.2 (2019): 129–44. DOI: 10.1515/humaff-2019-0011
  17. Lambda, N., Jadva, V., Kadam, K., Golombok, S. “The psychological well-being and prenatal bonding of gestational surrogates.” Human Reprod 33.4 (2018): 646–53. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/dey048
  18. Mennesson v. France and Labassee v. France: Surrogate motherhood across borders. Available from: [https://strasbourgobservers.com/2014/07/16/mennesson-v-france-and-labassee-v-france-surrogate-motherhood-across-borders/].
  19. Mitra, S., Schicktanz, S. “Failed surrogate conceptions: social and ethical aspects of preconception disruptions during commercial surrogacy in India.” Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine 11 (2016): 2–16. DOI: 10.1186/s13010-016-0040-6
  20. Ministry of Health of Ukraine. Order from 10.12.2001. No 489 “On Approval of Statistical Documentation on Assisted Reproductive Technologies.” (registered with the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine on 25.10.2001, No 1068/6259). Available from: [http://zakon2.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/z1068-01].
  21. Oultram, S. “One mum too few: maternal status in host surrogate motherhood arrangements.” J Medical Ethics 41 (2015): 431–2. DOI: 10.1136/medethics-2012-100949
  22. Patel, N.H., Jadeja, Y.D., Bhadarka, H.K., et al. “Insight into Different Aspects of Surrogacy Practices.” J Hum Reprod Sci 11.3 (2018): 212–8. DOI: 10.4103/jhrs.JHRS_138_17
  23. Payne, J.G., Korolczuk, E., Mezinska, S. “Surrogacy relationships: a critical interpretative review.” Ups J Med Sci 125.2 (2020): 183–91. DOI: 10.1080/03009734.2020.1725935
  24. Points, K. “Commercial surrogacy and fertility tourism in India: The Case of Baby Manji.” The Kenan Institute for Ethics at Duke University. Available from: [https://web.duke.edu/kenanethics/casestudies/babymanji.pdf].
  25. Reznik, O.M., Yakushchenko, Y.M. “Legal considerations surrounding surrogacy in Ukraine.” Wiadomości Lekarskie LXXIII.5 (2020): 1048–52.
  26. Saadeh, R., Abdulrahim, N., Alfaqih, M., Khader, Y. “Attitude of Jordanian Health Care Workers Toward Surrogacy.” J Family Reprod Health 14.1 (2020): 5–13.
  27. Shchyrska, V., Konopelskyi, V., Popovych, Y., et al. “Ethical and Legal Aspects of Surrogacy in Ukraine and in the World.” J Legal, Ethical and Regulatory Issues 23.2 (2020). Available from: [https://www.abacademies.org/journals/month-april-year-2020-vol-23-issue-2-journal-jleri-past-issue.html].
  28. Simopoulou, M., Sfakianoudis, K., Tsioulou, P., et al. “Risks in Surrogacy Considering the Embryo: From the Preimplantation to the Gestational and Neonatal Period.” BioMed Research Int (2018). DOI: 10.1155/2018/6287507
  29. Simopoulou, M., Sfakianoudis, K., Rapani, A., et al. “Considerations Regarding Embryo Culture Conditions: From Media to Epigenetics.” In Vivo 32.3 (2018): 451–60. DOI: 10.21873/invivo.11261
  30. Straehle, C. “Is there a right to surrogacy?” J Applied Philosophy 33.2 (2016): 146–59. DOI: 10.1111/japp.12145
  31. Stuvøy, I. “Troublesome reproduction: surrogacy under scrutiny.” Reprod Biomed Soc Online 7 (2018): 33–43. DOI: 10.1016/j.rbms.2018.10.015
  32. Swanson, K., Ayala, N.K., Barnes, R.B., et al. “Understanding gestational surrogacy in the United States: a primer for obstetricians and gynecologists.” Am J Obstet Gynecol 222.4 (2020): 330–7. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2020.01.037
  33. Sylkina, S., Mynbatyrova, N., Umbetbayeva, Z., et al. “Surrogacy: An international comparative analysis of the fundamental legislative principles of Ukraine.” Medicine, Science and the Law 60.1 (2019): 37–44. DOI: 10.1177/0025802419884417
  34. Tan, S. “Surrogacy and human flourishing.” J Legal Philosophy 45.1 (2020): 49–79. DOI: 10.4337/jlp.2020.01.03
  35. Torres, G., Shapiro, A., Mackey, T.K. “A review of surrogate motherhood regulation in south American countries: pointing to a need for an international legal framework.” BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 19 (2019): 2–12. DOI: 10.1186/s12884-019-2182-1
  36. Tribunal Constitucional Portugal. ACÓRDÃO N.º 225/2018. Available from: [http://www.tribunalconstitucional.pt/tc/acordaos/20180225.html].
  37. Ullah, A., Nawaz, F. “Surrogacy-led migration: reflections on the policy dilemmas. Public Administration and Policy: An Asia-Pacific Journal 23.2 (2020): 157–71. DOI: 10.1108/PAP-03-2020-0014
  38. Valsamakis, G., Chrousos, G., Mastorakos, G. “Stress, female reproduction and pregnancy.” Psychoneuroendocrinology 100 (2019): 48–57. DOI: 10.1016/j.psyneuen.2018.09.031
  39. Verkerk, M., Lindemann, H., McLaughlin, J., et al. “Where families and healthcare meet.” J Med Ethics 41.2 (2015): 183–5. DOI: 10.1136/medethics-2013-101783
  40. Zaouaq, K. “La gestation pour autrui au regard de l’éthique et du droit.” Can J Bioethics 3.3 (2020): 128–33. DOI: 10.7202/1073789ar

Downloads

Published

2021-12-29

How to Cite

Blikhar, V., Zharovska, I., & Ortynska, N. (2021). Surrogacy in Ukraine: theoretical and applied problem: Literature review. REPRODUCTIVE ENDOCRINOLOGY, (62), 22–28. https://doi.org/10.18370/2309-4117.2021.62.22-28

Issue

No. 62 (2021)

Section

Treatment of infertility and pregnancy

License

Copyright (c) 2021 В.С. Бліхар, І.М. Жаровська, Н.В. Ортинська

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

    1. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.

    1. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.