-RETRACTED- MEDICALLY ASSISTED REPRODUCTION – BEHIND THE CURTAIN OF LEGAL PROVISIONS

Ivana Barać

Abstract

-RETRACTED-
Medically assisted reproduction, which first emerged in 1978, is regarded as an important mechanism for combating infertility in an efficient and approachable manner. Albeit the fact that different countries opt for different solutions when dealing with this issue, it can nevertheless be stressed that they all tend to recognize the right of any individual battling with infertility to become a user of MAR treatments. Hence, the author stresses that reproductive autonomy is, and more importantly, should be regarded as an absolute right, which can only be limited as a means to protect democratic society.

Notwithstanding the importance of different legal acts in the Republic of Serbia recognizing the right to become a parent, the author’s main area of interest were the provisions of the Law on Medically Assisted Reproduction (hereinafter: LMAR). Consequently, this paper questions the rationale used by the legislator in drafting the provisions on subjects eligible to use MAR treatments. LMAR entitles three different types to subjects with this right. Firstly, such a right is granted to couples (both spouses and extramarital partners) provided that they are subject to an evaluation which in turn testifies to their ability to fulfill their parental duties. Such an evaluation can be questioned from more than one point and should be, as such, modified. In that respect, the said condition ought to be, either removed from LMAR, or possibly amended in a manner which would result in a predefined and detailed procedure of the evaluation, authorized personnel and requirements needed for a couple to be considered suitable to use MAR treatments. Secondly, single women (regardless of their (in)fertility) are also entitled to exercise their right to use MAR treatments. Such a provision was subject to a number of critiques by legal authors, as they argued that by entitling a woman with such a right, due attention should also be made to the protection of the best interests of the child. The author stands on the same grounds. Aside from the fact that the Serbian legal system undeniably grants single women the right to use MAR treatments, it most certainly can be pointed out that the legislator paid little to no attention to its duty to protect the child’s best interest. Moreover, the paper sheds some light on the question of whether the pandemic caused negative effects when speaking about the right to use MAR treatments.

Bearing in mind the previously stated, it can be deduced that Serbian legal norms present a fine example when speaking of people granted the right to use MAR treatments. Still, Serbian legislators should reconsider redrafting some of the provisions, as well as carefully weigh-in the importance of both single women’s right to undergo MAR treatments and the child’s best interest.

References

• Bordaš, Bernadet. 2011. „Pitanja biomedicinski potpomognutog oplođenja pred Evropskim sudom
• za ljudska prava.ˮ U Zbornik radova Pravnog fakulteta, 45 (3), ur. Dragiša Dakić, 313‒333. Novi Sad: Univerzitet u Novom Sadu, Pravni fakultet, Centar za izdavačku delatnost.
• Dickson v. The United Kingdom, No. 44362/04, Judgement of the Court on Merits and Just
• Satisfaction of 4 December 2007, ECLI:CE:ECHR:2007:1204JUD004436204.
• Draškić, Marija. 1992. „Porodičnopravni aspekti aritficijelne inseminacije.ˮ Anali Pravnog
• fakulteta u Beogradu 40 (4/1992): 239-264. UDK- 347.61/64:343.3/. 7.
• Draškić, Marija. 2013. „Biomedicinski potpomognuto oplođenje.ˮ U Razvoj pravnog
• sistema Srbije i harmonizacija sa pravom EU, ur. Radmila Vasić i Ivana Krstić, 219‒235.
• Beograd: Pravni fakultet Univerziteta u Beogradu.
• Draškić, Marija. 2019. Porodično pravo i pravo deteta. Beograd: Pravni fakultet Univerziteta u Beogradu.
• Evropska konvencija o ljudskim pravima, „Službeni list Srbije i Crne Gore-Međunarodni
• ugovoriˮ, br. 9/2003, 5/2005, 7/2005 i „Službeni glasnik Republike Srbije – Međunarodni
• ugovoriˮ, br. 12/2010 i 10/2015.
• Evans v. The United Kingdom, No. 6339/05, Judgement of the Court on Merits of 10 April
• 2007, ECLI:CE:ECHR:2007:0410JUD000633905.
• Kovaček Stanić, Gordana. 2008. Legislativa o ljudskoj reprodukciji uz biomedicinsku
• pomoć, Novi Sad: Univerzitet u Novom Sadu, Pravni fakultet, Centar za izdavačku
• delatnost.
• Kovaček Stanić, Gordana. 2010. „Porodičnopravni aspekti biomedicinski potpomognutog
• oplođenja u pravu Srbije i evropskim pravimaˮ U Zbornik Matice srpske za društvene
• nauke ur. Branislav S. Đurđev, Novka Mojić, Đorđe Rakočević, Cvetanka Savić, Andreja
• Stajšić, 415‒431. Novi Sad: Matica srpska.
• Kovaček Stanić, Gordana, Samardžić, Sandra. 2016. „Subjekti artificijelnih reproduktivnih
• tehnologija i njihova prava u primeni ovih postupaka (preimplantaciona dijagnostika).ˮ
• Pravni život 10/2016: 57‒72.
• Kovaček Stanić, Gordana, Samardžić, Sandra. 2017. „Novi oblici porodice: medicinski
• asisitirana reprodukcija.ˮ Pravni život 10/2017: 139‒154.
• Levine, Rebecca. 1984. “My body, my life, my baby, my rights.ˮ Human Rights Law
• Quarterly 12 (1): 46‒50. American Bar Association.
• Mršević, Zorica. 2020. Analiza uslova i načina ostvarivanja biomedicinski potpomognute
• oplodnje u Srbiji. Beograd: Labris-organizacija za lezbejska ljudska prava.
• Porodični zakon, „Službeni glasnik Republike Srbijeˮ, br. 18/2005, 72/2011-dr. zakon i
• 6/2015.
• Republički fond za zdravstveno osiguranje [RFZO]. 2021. Uputstvo za sprovođenje
• lečenja neplodnosti postupcima biomedicinski potpomognutog oplođenja (BMPO),
• Beograd: Republički fond za zdravstveno osiguranje.
• Republički sekretarijat za javne politike. 2016. Mišljenje broj 011-00-0035/2016-02, 23.
• Beograd: Republički sekretarijat za javne politike.
• S.H. and others v. Austria, No. 57813/00, Judgement of the Court on Merits and Just
• Satisfaction of 3 November 2011, ECLI:CE:ECHR:2011:1103JUD005781300.
• Samardžić, Sandra, 2018. „Prava deteta u oblasti medicinski asistirane reprodukcije.ˮ
• Doktorska diseratacija. Univerzitet u Novom Sadu: Pravni Fakultet.
• Scherpe, Jens M. 2012. “Medically assisted procreation: This margin needs to be
• appreciated.ˮ Cambridge Law Journal 71 (2): 276‒279.
• Ustav Republike Srbije, „Službeni glasnik Republike Srbijeˮ, br. 98/06.
• Ustav Socijalističke Federativne Republike Jugoslavije, „Službeni listˮ, 9/74.
• Vlada Republike Srbije [VLADA RS]. 2016. Obrazloženje Zakona o biomedicinski
• potpomognutoj oplodnji. Beograd: Vlada Republike Srbije.
• Vlašković, Veljko. 2019. „Žena koja živi sama kao korisnica usluga biomedicinski
• potpomognute oplodnje.ˮ U Zbornik radova Sloboda pružanja usluga i pravna sigurnost ur. Miodrag Mićović, 651‒665. Kragujevac: Pravni fakultet Univerziteta u Kragujevcu, Institut za pravne i društvene nauke.
• Zakon o biomedicinski potpomognutoj oplodnji, „Službeni glasnik Republike Srbijeˮ, br.
• 40/2017 i 113/2017-dr.zakon.
• Zakon o lečenju neplodnosti postupcima biomedicinski potpomognutog oplođenja,
• „Službeni glasnik Republike Srbijeˮ, br. 72/09.
• Zegers-Hochschild, Fernanrdo, G. David Adamson, Silke Dyer, Catherine Racowsky, Rebecca
• Sokol, Laura Rienzi, Arne Sunde, Lone Schmidt, Ian D. Cooke, Joe Leigh Simpson, and Sheryl van der Poel. 2017. “The International Glossary on Infertility and Fertility Care, 2017.ˮ Human Reproduction, 32 (9) https://secureservercdn.net/198.71.233.206/3nz.654.myftpupload.com/wpcontent/uploads/2017-HR-Glossary.pdf.