Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T14:00:35.743Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Assisted Reproductive Technology in Spain: Considering Women's Interests

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 July 2009

INMACULADA DE MELO-MARTÍN
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

It might come as a surprise to many that Spain, a country with a strong Catholic tradition that officially banned contraceptive technologies until 1978, has some of the most liberal regulations in assisted reproduction in the world. Law No. 35/1988 was one of the first and most detailed acts of legislation undertaken on the subject of assisted-conception procedures. Indeed, not only did the law permit research on nonviable embryos, it made assisted reproductive technologies available to any woman, whether married or not, through the national healthcare system.

Type
Special Section: The Many Voices of Spanish Bioethics
Information
Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics , Volume 18 , Issue 3 , July 2009 , pp. 228 - 235
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Jefatura del Estado. Ley 35/1988, de 22 de Noviembre, Sobre Técnicas de Reproducción Asistida. Madrid: BOE, 282, November 24, 1988: 33373–8.

2. Zapatero apoya una investigación con células madre “con rigor” y sin “frenos artificiales.” EL PAIS.es. 2006 Mar 27; available at http://www.elpais.es/articulo/elpporsoc/20060327elpepusoc_3/Tes/sociedad/Zapatero/apoya/investigacion/celulas/madre/rigor/frenos/artificiales (last accessed 28 Jul 2008).

3. Rodriguez del Pozo P, Fins JJ. Iberian influences on Pan-American bioethics: Bringing Don Quixote to our shores. Cambridge Quarterly of Health Care Ethics 2006;15(3):225–38; Gracia Guillén D. Spanish bioethics comes into maturity: Personal reflections. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 2009:18(3):219–227 (this issue).

4. Comisión Especial de Estudio de la Fecundación “In Vitro” y la Inseminación Artificial Humanas. Informe. Madrid: Gabinete de Publicaciones; 1987.

5. The granting of Royal Assent is the formal procedure by which the sitting constitutional monarch, in this case King Juan Carlos I, completes the legislative process of lawmaking by formally assenting to a legislative act.

6. See note 1, Jefatura de Estado, 1988.

7. Jefatura del Estado. Ley 45/2003, de 21 de Noviembre, Por la que se Modifica La Ley 35/1988, De 22 de Noviembre, Sobre Técnicas de Reproducción Asistida. Madrid: BOE, 280, November 22, 2003: 41458–63.

8. Jefatura del Estado. Ley 14/2006, de 27 de Mayo, Sobre Técnicas de Reproducción Humana Asistida. Madrid: BOE, 126, May 27, 2006: 19947–56.

9. Fineschi V, Neri M, Turillazzi E. The new Italian law on assisted reproduction technology (Law 40/2004). Journal of Medical Ethics 2005;31(9):536–9.

10. Instituto Bernabeu. Fecundación in Vitro; available at http://www.institutobernabeu.com/ (last accessed 28 Jul 2008).

11. FivMadrid. Resultados; available at http://www.fivmadrid.es/ (last accessed 28 Jul 2008).

12. Rajkhowa M, McConnell A, Thomas GE. Reasons for discontinuation of IVF treatment: A questionnaire study. Human Reproduction 2006;21(2):358–63.

13. Daya S. Life table (survival) analysis to generate cumulative pregnancy rates in assisted reproduction: Are we overestimating our success rates? Human Reproduction 2005;20(5):1135–43; Min JK, Breheny SA, MacLachlan V, Healy DL. What is the most relevant standard of success in assisted reproduction? The singleton, term gestation, live birth rate per cycle initiated: The BESST endpoint for assisted reproduction. Human Reproduction 2004;19(1):3–7.

14. Elizur SE, Lerner-Geva L, Levron J, Shulman A, Bider D, Dor J. Factors predicting IVF treatment outcome: A multivariate analysis of 5310 cycles. Reproductive Biomedicine Online 2005;10(5):645–9.

15. Andersen AN, Goossens V, Gianaroli L, Felberbaum R, de Mouzon J, Nygren KG. Assisted reproductive technology in Europe, 2003. Results generated from European registers by ESHRE. Human Reproduction 2007;22(6):1513–25; The European IVF-monitoring programme (EIM) for the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE), Andersen AN, Gianaroli L, Felberbaum R, de Mouzon J, Nygren KG. Assisted reproductive technology in Europe, 2002. Results generated from European registers by ESHRE. Human Reproduction 2006;21(7):1680–97.

16. El-Toukhy T, Khalaf Y, Braude P. IVF results: Optimize not maximize. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 2006;194(2):322–3.

17. Gleicher N, Barad D. The relative myth of elective single embryo transfer. Human Reproduction 2006;21(6):1337–44.

18. Flisser E, Licciardi F. One at a time. Fertility and Sterility 2006;85(3):555–8.

19. Wright VC, Chang J, Jeng G, Chen M, Macaluso M. Assisted reproductive technology surveillance—United States, 2004. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. Surveillance Summaries. 2007;56(6):1–22.

20. Wright VC, Schieve LA, Reynolds MA, Jeng G. Assisted reproductive technology surveillance—United States, 2002. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. Surveillance Summaries. 2005;54(2):1–24.

21. See note 16, El-Toukhy et al. 2006; Nakhuda GS, Sauer MV. Addressing the growing problem of multiple gestations created by assisted reproductive therapies. Seminars in Perinatology 2005;29(5):355–62.

22. American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Guidelines on the number of embryos transferred. Fertility and Sterility 2004;82(3):773–4.

23. Mayor S. UK authority sets limit on number of embryos transferred. British Medical Journal 2004;328(7431):65.

24. Norwitz ER, Edusa V, Park JS. Maternal physiology and complications of multiple pregnancy. Seminars in Perinatology 2005;29(5):338–48.

25. See note 19, Wright et al. 2007; see note 24, Norwitz et al. 2005.

26. Ombelet W, De Sutter P, Van der Elst J, Martens G. Multiple gestation and infertility treatment: Registration, reflection and reaction—the Belgian project. Human Reproduction Update 2005;11(1):3–14.

27. Collins J. Cost efficiency of reducing multiple births. Reproductive Biomedicine Online 2007;15(Suppl 3):35–9.

28. See notes 26, Ombelet et al. 2005; see note 27, Collins 2007.