The consequences of S.H. and others v. austria for legislation on gamete donation in Europe: An ethical analysis of the European court of human rights judgments

Reproductive BioMedicine Online

Volumn 25, Issue 7, 2012, Pages 665-669

  Van Hoof, Wannes ^a   Pennings, Guido ^a  

^a GHENT UNIVERSITY   (Belgium)

Author keywords

ethics; gamete donation; legal diversity; margin of appreciation; patient rights; proportionality

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; AUSTRIA; DECISION MAKING; EUROPE; FERTILIZATION IN VITRO; GAMETE; HUMAN; HUMAN RIGHTS; INFERTILITY THERAPY; LAW; MEDICAL ETHICS; MOTHER; POLICY; SPERM DONOR;

AUSTRIA; DIRECTED TISSUE DONATION; ETHICAL ANALYSIS; EUROPE; HUMAN RIGHTS; HUMANS; JUDGMENT; REPRODUCTIVE TECHNIQUES, ASSISTED;

EID: 84871243491     PISSN: 14726483     EISSN: 14726491     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2012.05.016     Document Type: Article

References (10)

1. ECtHR, 2010. S.H. and others v. Austria. First Section judgement. Available from: < http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action= htmlanddocumentId=865856andportal=hbkmandsource=externalbydocnumberandtable= F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 >.
2. ECtHR, 2011. S.H. and others v. Austria. Grand Chamber judgement. Available from: < http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action= htmlanddocumentId=894729andportal=hbkmandsource=externalbydocnumberandtable= F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 >.
3. Gianaroli, 2010. Quoted in interview: European Court declares Austria's ban on gamete donation unjustified. Focus on Reproduction May 2010, 7.
4. G. Pennings Reproductive tourism as moral pluralism in motion J. Med. Ethics 28 2002 337 341
5. C.L. Rozakis The European Judge as comparatist Tul. L. Rev. 80 2005 257 280
6. F. Shenfield, J. de Mouzon, G. Pennings, A.P. Ferraretti, A. Nyboe Andersen, G. de Wert, and V. Goossens Cross border reproductive care in six European countries Hum. Reprod. 25 2010 1361 1368
7. Smet, S., 2010. How the outcome can be good, but the reasoning sloppy. Strasbourg Observers 23 April, 2010. Available from: < http:// strasbourgobservers.com/2010/04/13/how-the-outcome-can-be-good-but-the- reasoning-sloppy/ >.
8. R. Storrow The pluralism problem in cross-border reproductive care Hum. Reprod. 25 2010 2939 2943
9. Timmer, A., 2011. S.H. and Others v Austria: margin of appreciation and IVF. Strasbourg Observers 9 November 2011. Available from: < http://strasbourgobservers.com/2011/11/09/s-h-and-others-v-austria-margin-of- appreciation-and-ivf/ >.
10. W. Van Hoof, and G. Pennings Extraterritorial laws for cross-border reproductive care: the issue of legal diversity Eur. J. Health Law 19 2012 1 14