Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27449932›Full record

ArticleBMC women's health2016

Italian law on medically assisted reproduction: do women's autonomy and health matter?

Irene Riezzo, Margherita Neri, Stefania Bello, Cristoforo Pomara, Emanuela Turillazzi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC women's health, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Mapping Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications (ELSI) of gamete donation.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2024
    Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Irene RiezzoInstitute of Legal Medicine, Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, University of Foggia, Ospedale Colonnello D'Avanzo, Via degli Aviatori, 1, 71100, Foggia, Italy.
Margherita NeriInstitute of Legal Medicine, Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, University of Foggia, Ospedale Colonnello D'Avanzo, Via degli Aviatori, 1, 71100, Foggia, Italy.
Stefania BelloInstitute of Legal Medicine, Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, University of Foggia, Ospedale Colonnello D'Avanzo, Via degli Aviatori, 1, 71100, Foggia, Italy.
Cristoforo PomaraInstitute of Legal Medicine, Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, University of Foggia, Ospedale Colonnello D'Avanzo, Via degli Aviatori, 1, 71100, Foggia, Italy.
Emanuela TurillazziInstitute of Legal Medicine, Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, University of Foggia, Ospedale Colonnello D'Avanzo, Via degli Aviatori, 1, 71100, Foggia, Italy. emanuela_turillazzi@inwind.it.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn Italy in 2004, a very restrictive law was passed on medically assisted reproduction (MAR) (Law 40/2004) that placed Italy at the most conservative end of the European spectrum. The law was widely criticized and many couples seeking MAR brought their cases before the Italian Civil Courts with regard to pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD), donor insemination and the issue of consent. Ten years on, having suffered the blows of the Italian Constitutional Court, little remains of law 40/2004. DISCUSSION: In 2009, the Constitutional Court declared the maximum limit of the number of embryos to be produced and transferred for each cycle (i.e. three), as stated in the original version of the law, to be constitutionally illegitimate. In 2014, the same Court declared as unconstitutional the ban on donor insemination, thus opening the way to heterologous assisted reproduction. Heterologous MAR is therefore perfectly legitimate in Italy. Finally, in 2015 a further ruling by the Constitutional Court granted the right to access MAR to couples who are fertile but carriers of genetic diseases. However, there is still much room for criticism. Many couples and groups are still, in fact, excluded from MAR. Same-sex couples, single women and those of advanced reproductive age are, at the present time, discriminated against in that Italian law denies these subjects access to MAR. The history of Law 40/2004 has been a particularly troubled one. Numerous rulings have, over the years, dismantled much of a law constructed in violation of the rights and autonomy of women and couples. However, a number of troubling issues still exist from what is left of the law and the debate is still open at national and transnational level regarding some of the contradictions and gaps in the law highlighted in this article. Only by abolishing the final prohibitions and adopting more liberal views on these controversial yet crucial issues will Law 40/2004 become what it should have been from the start, i.e. a law which outlines the 'rules of use' of MAR and not, as it has been until now, a law of bans which sets limits to the freedom to reproduce.

Indexed as

Health StatusJurisprudencePersonal AutonomyEmbryo DispositionEmbryo ImplantationFemaleHuman RightsHumansInformed ConsentItalyReproductive Techniques, AssistedAutonomyDiscriminationItalian lawMedically assisted reproductionReproductive choices

Identifiers

PMID27449932
PMCPMC4958410

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.