State legal regulation and patient autonomy in the field of reproductive health

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18370/2309-4117.2024.74.73-79

Keywords:

reproductive health, reproductive rights, patient’s right to autonomy, women’s right, public health, governmental influence, legal policy, legal regulation

Abstract

Background. The article analyses the interaction between the state’s mandatory regulation of the human right to reproductive health and its coordination with the patient’s autonomous will. The main emphasis is placed on the latest reproductive procedures and methods and possible problems in their implementation in relation to human autonomy are pointed out.
Objective of the study: to find the optimal combination of state, public and private legal interests in the exercise of the right to reproductive health and to establish the legal nature of patient autonomy in this area.
Materials and methods. A comprehensive methodological approach was used, including a combination of legal, medical knowledge and cultural and ethical norms of society. The humanistic method was used to establish the priority of human rights and will in the regulation of reproductive rights, and the method of gender analysis was used to understand the differences in the level of autonomy of women and men in reproductive medicine. The empirical method was used in the author’s survey of 402 women in the Republic of Poland and Ukraine on their personal and state legal attitudes to reproductive health.
Results. Two approaches to state regulation of reproductive autonomy are envisaged: the first one limits legal regulation and state intervention, giving priority to individual autonomy, the second one indicates a legitimate broad, but legitimate possibility of interfering with the patient’s autonomous decision in the field of reproductive health. The author distinguishes legitimate groups of restrictive legal phenomena in the field of the right to exercise the human reproductive function: general legal restrictions and special restrictions relating exclusively to the human right to reproduction.
Conclusions. It is need to update national legislation by specifying clearer medical protocols regarding the number of embryos during embryo transfer and their dependence on the patient’s age. The author identifies the newest possibilities of gene editing as an ethical and medical problem and proves the public fear in this area, which requires additional legal regulation.

Author Biographies

M.M. Blikhar, Institute of Jurisprudence, Psychology and Innovative Education of the National University «Lviv Polytechnic», Lviv

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

I.О. Lychenko, Institute of Jurisprudence, Psychology and Innovative Education of National University «Lviv Polytechnic», Lviv

Doctor of juridical sciences, professor, head of the Civil Law and Procedure Department

Y.S. Oliinyk, Institute of Jurisprudence, Psychology and Innovative Education of National University «Lviv Polytechnic», Lviv

Doctor of juridical sciences, professor, Department of Legal Theory and Constitutionalism

M.Y. Shchyrba, Lesya Ukrainka Volyn National University, Lutsk

Doctor of law, professor, Department of Theory and History of State and Law

I.I. Shulhan, Institute of Jurisprudence, Psychology and Innovative Education of the National University «Lviv Polytechnic», Lviv

PhD, associate professor, Department of Administrative and Informational Law

References

  1. Logie C. H. Sexual rights and sexual pleasure: Sustainable Development Goals and the omitted dimensions of the leave no one behind sexual health agenda. Global Public Health. 2021. 18(1). DOI: 10.1080/17441692.2021.1953559
  2. Senderowicz L. Contraceptive Autonomy: Conceptions and Measurement of a Novel Family Planning Indicator. Studies in Family Planning, 2020;51(2):161–176. DOI: 10.1111/sifp.12114
  3. Cavaliere G. The problem with reproductive freedom. Procreation beyond procreators’ interests. Med Health Care and Philos 2020; 23:131–140 DOI: 10.1007/s11019-019-09917-3
  4. Kantorová, V. Unintended pregnancy and abortion: what does it tell us about reproductive health and autonomy? The Lancet Global Health, 2020; 8 (9):e1106 – e1107
  5. Ashley F. Adolescent Medical Transition is Ethical: An Analogy with Reproductive Health. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, 2022;32 (2):127–171 DOI:10.1353/ken.2022.0010
  6. Upadhyay U, Danza P, Torsten N, et al. Development and Validation of the Sexual and Reproductive Empowerment Scale for Adolescents and Young Adults. Journal of Adolescent Health. 2021; 68(1): 86-94. DOI: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2020.05.031
  7. Villalobos A, Estrada F., Hubert C., Torres-Ibarra L., et al. Sexual and reproductive health among adolescents in vulnerable contexts in Mexico: Needs, knowledge, and rights. PLOS Glob Public Health. 2023;3(11): e0002396. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pgph.0002396
  8. Мondal D, Karmakar S, Banerjee A. Women’s autonomy and utilization of maternal healthcare in India: Evidence from a recent national survey. PLoS ONE. 2020;15(12): e0243553. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0243553
  9. Nadeem M, Malik MI, Anwar M, et al. Women Decision Making Autonomy as a Facilitating Factor for Contraceptive Use for Family Planning in Pakistan. Soc Indic Res. 2021;156: 71–89. DOI: 10.1007/s11205-021-02633-7
  10. Kebede AA., Cherkos EA, Taye EB, et al. Married women’s decision-making autonomy in the household and maternal and neonatal healthcare utilization and associated factors in Debretabor, northwest Ethiopia. PLoS ONE. 2021; 16(9): e0255021. DOI: journal.pone.0255021
  11. Riche E, Barrett, G, Hall JA. Evaluation of the psychometric properties of the Reproductive Autonomy Scale for use in the UK. BMJ Sexual & Reproductive Health. 2023;49:151–157. DOI: 10.1136/bmjsrh-2022-201685
  12. Chalmers J, Petterson A, Woodford L, Sutton, R. The Rights of Man: Libertarian Concern for Men’s, But Not Women’s, Reproductive Autonomy. Political Psychology. 2023; 44(3):603–625 DOІ: 10.1111/pops.12867
  13. Burke HM, Ridgeway K, Murray K, et al. Reproductive empowerment and contraceptive self-care: a systematic review. Sexual and Reproductive Health Matters, 2022;29(3). DOІ: 10.1080/26410397.2022.2090057
  14. Athan AM. Reproductive identity: An emerging concept. American Psychologist, 2020. 75(4): 445–456. DOІ: 10.1037/amp0000623
  15. Hwan K, Lee A. How patient autonomy drives the legal liabilities of medical practitioners and the practical ways to mitigate and resolve them, Postgraduate Medical Journal. 2023; 99(1168):83–88. DOІ: 10.1093/postmj/qgad003
  16. Alam R, Abdul Rasheed F. Patient autonomy and decision-making capacity; ethical dilemmas in clinical practice. [Internet]. Pakistan Journal of Ethics. 2024;4(1):7–12. Available from: https://www. kgpublisher.com/index.php/pje/article/view/138
  17. Johnston J, Zacharias R. The Future of Reproductive Autonomy. Supplement: Just Reproduction: Reimagining Autonomy in Reproductive Medicine, 2017;47:S6–S11 DOІ: 10.1002/hast.789
  18. Hall J, Chawla M, Watson D, et al. Addressing reproductive health needs across the life course: an integrated, community-based model combining contraception and preconception care. The Lancet Public Health, 2023; 8(1): e76 – e84 DOI: 10.1016/S2468-2667(22)00254-7
  19. Watson D, Jacob C, Giles G, et al. A scoping review of nutritional interventions and policy guidelines in the interconception period for prevention of noncommunicable diseases. Reprod Female Child Health. 2022; 1:18–41 DOI:10.1002/rfc2.8
  20. Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms Rome. 4.XI.1950. [Internet]. Available from: https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/d/echr/convention_ENG
  21. Kulczycki A. Between a Rock and a Hard Place: Abortion, Catholicism, the Populist Right and Public Health Threats in Poland. Religions, 2023;14;1271. DOІ: 10.3390/rel14101271
  22. Kehmová S. Towards a total ban on abortion? The factors shaping Polish perception of the right to abortion and reproductive injustice in Poland. SN Soc Sci/ 2023;3:153. DOІ: 10.1007/s43545-023-00742-3
  23. Strek K., Brady K., Parker C. Polish court convicts activist of providing abortion pills in landmark case. Washington Post, 2023; March 14.
  24. Sussman A. What the U.S. Could Learn from Abortion Without Borders. [Internet]. The New Yorker, 2022; May 17. Available from: https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/what-the-us-could-learn-from-abortion-without-borders
  25. United States Reports. Dobbs, State Health Officer of the Mississippi Department of Health et al. [Internet]. Jackson Women’s Health Organization et al. 2022;597. Available from: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf
  26. Bole R., Lundy S.D., Pei E, et al. Rising vasectomy volume following reversal of federal protections for abortion rights in the United States. Int J Impot Res, 2024;36:265–268. DOІ: 10.1038/s41443-023-00672-x
  27. Velez D, Pagani, R, Mima, M, Ohlander S. Vasectomy: a guidelines-based approach to male surgical contraception. Fertil Steril. 2021;115:1365–8. DOI: 10.1016/j. fertnstert.2021.03.045
  28. Kimport K. No Real Choice: How Culture and Politics Matter for Reproductive Autonomy, 2021; DOI:10.36019/9781978817951
  29. Fertility treatment 2022: preliminary trends and figures. Preliminary UK statistics for IVF and DI treatment, storage, and donation. [Internet]. 2024 Available from: https://www. hfea.gov.uk/about-us/publications/research-and-data/fertility-treatment-2022-preliminary-trends-and-figures/
  30. Order of the Ministry of Health of Ukraine 09.09.2013 № 787 «Pro zatverdzhennia Poriadku zastosuvannia dopomizhnykh reproduktyvnykh tekhnolohii v Ukraini». [Internet]. Order of the Ministry of Health of Ukraine. 2013. Available from: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/z1697-13#Text
  31. Elliott RA, Camacho E., Jankovic D, et al Economic analysis of the prevalence and clinical and economic burden of medication error in England. BMJ Quality & Safety 2021;30:96–105. DOI: 10.1136/bmjqs-2019-010206
  32. Zhu J, Pu S, He J, et al. Processing imbalanced medical data at the data level with assisted-reproduction data as an example. BioData Mining, 2024; 17, 29 DOІ: 10.1186/s13040-024-00384-y
  33. Global health. UnFoundation. 26.03.2023. [Internet]. 2023. Available from: https://unfoundation.org/what-we-do/issues/global-health/?gclid=Cj0KCQjw2v-gBhC1ARIsAOQdKY1Ll4chY_Qy6j6jOAj46VL4o_Oeblp--
  34. Shapovalov V. Multidisciplinary Study of Medical Errors in the System of Legal Relations Between «Doctor-Patient-Pharmacist-Advocate» During the Circulation of Drugs. SSP Modern Pharmacy and Medicine. 2023;3(2):1–10. DOІ: 10.53933/sspmpm.v3i2.88
  35. Rueda J. From Self-Determination to Offspring-Determination? Reproductive Autonomy, Procrustean Parenting, and Genetic Enhancement. 2022;88(6):1086–110. DOІ: 10.1111/theo.12349
  36. Sharma G, Sharma AR, Bhattacharya М. et al. CRISPR-Cas9: A Preclinical and Clinical Perspective for the Treatment of Human Diseases. Molecular Therapy, Volume 29, Issue 2, 571 –86 DOI: 10.1016/j.ymthe.2020.09.028
  37. Li T, Yang Y, QiH, et al. CRISPR/Cas9 therapeutics: progress and prospects. Sig Transduct Target Ther 2023; 8, 36 DOІ: 10.1038/s41392-023-01309-7
  38. Zhang H, Qin C, An C, et al. Application of the CRISPR/Cas9-based gene editing technique in basic research, diagnosis, and therapy of cancer. Mol Cancer, 2021; 20, 126. DOІ: 10.1186/s12943-021-01431-6
  39. Wang, S.W., Gao, C., Zheng, Y.M. et al. Current applications and future perspective of CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing in cancer. Mol Cancer, 2022; 21, 57. DOІ: 10.1186/s12943-022-01518-8
  40. Barman A, Deb B, Chakraborty S. A glance at genome editing with CRISPR–Cas9 technology. Curr Genet 2020; 66: 447–462. DOІ: 10.1007/s00294-019-01040-3
  41. Janik, E, Niemcewicz M., Ceremuga M, et al. Various Aspects of a Gene Editing System—CRISPR–Cas9. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020; 21, 9604. DOІ: 10.3390/ijms21249604

Downloads

Published

2024-11-29

How to Cite

Blikhar, M., Lychenko, I., Oliinyk, Y., Shchyrba, M., & Shulhan, I. (2024). State legal regulation and patient autonomy in the field of reproductive health. REPRODUCTIVE ENDOCRINOLOGY, (74), 73–79. https://doi.org/10.18370/2309-4117.2024.74.73-79

Issue

No. 74 (2024)

Section

Health care

License

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.