The Constitutional Court of Colombia established new criteria on the in vitro fertilization treatments in a recent ruling. This decision comes after analyzing a case of guardianship presented by a woman who, together with her husband, had initiated an assisted fertilization procedure. This case highlighted the Need for clear and detailed regulation of assisted reproduction techniques in the context of a divorce dispute.
In view of this, the First Chamber of Review of the Constitutional Court analyzed the case of protection presented by Camilawho, at 39 years old, began a process of in vitro fertilization. This procedure was going to be performed with her husband Andrés and used an embryo formed by a donated egg and sperm from Andrés. Both had signed a consent expressing the will to continue with the processbut days before the embryo transfer, Andrés informed the clinic of his decision not to continue following the couple’s separation.
In this regard, the young woman filed a lawsuit against the clinic, the doctor and her ex-partner, arguing the suspension violated his rights. According to your request, This treatment represented her last chance to be a surrogate mother.which is why it asked the Court to take into account the precedent of the judgment T-357 of 2022 and ordered the transfer of the embryo.
When reviewing the case, The court concluded that the informed consent signed by the couple was not adequate for the procedure. of in vitro fertilization. The clinic did not detail the fundamental aspects of the procedure, the rights and obligations arising from it, or how to resolve conflicts. Although the document allowed either party to revoke their consent, The Court recognized that there was a conflict between the rights of both parties.
After evaluating the rights involved, The Court issued a less harmful measure and did not accept Camila’s request to transfer the embryo. Revocation of consent by Andrés affected her ex-partner, but did not permanently limit her right to reproductive self-determination. Although I had the option of being a surrogate mother with a different donorthe Court held that if the transfer was to be authorized would force Andrés to use his genetic material against his will.
On the other hand, the ruling highlighted that the case was different from that of the sentence T-357 the 2022where the embryo had genetic material from the plaintiff and there was no other possibility for her to be a surrogate mother. The Court reiterated the criterion of opportunity for theThe reproductive project is relevant when defining the scope of the revocation of consent in in vitro fertilization.
In addition, the court examined the liability of the clinic and the treating physician. Although no misconduct was found on the part of the physician, Yes, deficiencies were identified in the information provided by the clinic and in the content of the informed consent.Along the same lines, the clinic had requested the signature of the consent weeks after having started the treatment. In this context, it did not provide sufficient information at the time of the agreement, the document did not indicate what to do in case one of the parties wanted to abandon the procedure.
For such reasons, The court ordered the clinic to guarantee Camila, free of charge, the start of a new in vitro fertilization procedure.. Consequently, The Court reiterated the call to the national Government and the Congress of the Republiccarried out in judgment T-357 of 2022, to comprehensively regulate the assisted reproduction techniquesThese must include protocols for exercising the right to revoke consent in these scenarios, due to the disputes evidenced through the protection actions.
DOWNLOAD THE NOTE
FOLLOW US ON GOOGLE NEWS
:quality(85)/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/infobae/4ST2QSK6OJHFZBZMZPQROXWMVA.jpg?resize=150%2C150&ssl=1 "The simple summer dish that ‘The New York Times’ recommends to its readers ‘for a party or a picnic’")
