ArticleBMC women's health2016
Italian law on medically assisted reproduction: do women's autonomy and health matter?
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A systematic review on the demographics, motivations, and experiences of single mothers by choice.Reproductive health · 2025Pooled it
- Mapping Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications (ELSI) of gamete donation.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2024Review
- A comparison of assisted human reproduction (AHR) regulation in Ireland with other developed countries.Reproductive health · 2022Review
- Cross-border reproductive healthcare attitudes and behaviours among women living in Florence, Italy.BMC health services research · 2022Article
- An Update on Planned Oocyte Cryopreservation (POC) in Italy: Medical, Epidemiological and Legal Consideration.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Review
- The Moral Significance of Abortion Inconsistency Arguments.Asian bioethics review · 2022Article
- The need for regulation in the practice of human assisted reproduction in Mexico. An overview of the regulations in the rest of the world.Reproductive health · 2021Review
- Final destination of surplus cryopreserved embryos. What decision should be made?JBRA assisted reproduction · 2021Review
- Semantic segmentation of human oocyte images using deep neural networks.Biomedical engineering online · 2021Article
- Drawing the line on in vitro gametogenesis.Bioethics · 2020Article
- Treating Infertility: Current Affairs of Cross-border Reproductive Care.Open medicine (Warsaw, Poland) · 2019Article
- The Italian Code of Medical Deontology. Historical, ethical and legal issues.Acta bio-medica : Atenei Parmensis · 2018Review
- Practical guide to genetic screening for inherited eye diseases.Therapeutic advances in ophthalmologyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.