Argentine National Chamber of Appeals dismisses compensation for damages against medical center for failing to provide genetic counseling during assisted fertilization treatment.

Argentina’s National Chamber of Civil Appeals confirmed the ruling of the National Civil Court of First Instance No. 101 that rejected a claim for compensation for damages against the Buenos Aires Fertility Center for failing to provide preconception genetic counseling to a partner during an assisted fertilization treatment.

The conflict arose in October 2015, after the son of a couple who underwent assisted fertilization treatment was born with a genetic disease called “cystic fibrosis” that caused his death in February 2016. The couple filed a claim for compensation of damages against the medical center, accusing a negligent act on the part of the doctors, since they did not carry out preconception genetic tests that prevented the actors about the possible genetic diseases with which their child could be born and did not provide them with complete information that allowed to identify the risks and illnesses that could suffer.

The civil court rejected the claim, considering that the legislation does not oblige fertility centers to carry out preconception genetic studies on couples requesting assisted fertilization treatment. In turn, he pointed out that the medical center fully informed the background and the risks to which the applicants were subjected when undergoing the contested treatment.

The National Chamber confirmed the appeal sentence, for which it took into account that the facts of the case state that the medical center provided adequate treatment to the actors and provided complete information by virtue of the antecedents they had at the time of the treatment. of assisted fertilization. In turn, he pointed out that in in vitro fertilization treatments the legislation does not impose the obligation to carry out preconception genetic studies as it is established for other diseases such as the donation of female gametes, so the defendant did not incur in an act contrary to the “lex artis” and does not constitute an event generating civil liability.

See the full text of the judgment of the National Civil Appeals Chamber No. 25,886-2017.

–

–