Recently there was a court ruling that in the province will have a strong impact on the field of people who must appeal to assisted fertility, since it forces a social work to assume 100% of the economic coverage of a couple who will carry out a new treatment to seek a second pregnancy, regardless of whether you already received coverage in the pregnancy that led to the birth of your first child in December 2018.
The two members of the couple had to bear the costs of ‘freezing’ other embryos that resulted from the treatment that led to the pregnancy. They consulted DAMSU, the social work that took charge of the costs of the previous procedure, about the payment to carry out the transfer of those embryos and before the refusal, they initiated the lawsuit, which was developed in the Federal Court of First Instance of San Juan , with jurisdiction in Civil and Electoral matters. And in the judge’s ruling, after having also ordered that the social work assume the costs of the transfer that did not result in a new pregnancy, it was established that the economic coverage will continue to be provided by the social work every time the couple does so. ask. And another novel aspect is that the magistrate applied a gender perspective.
Although the Fertility Law, 26,862, supports the needs of the couple, the antecedents on this issue in other provinces indicate that it depends a lot on the judgment of the judge, considered the couple’s lawyer, Vanesa Mestre, who added that there is also court orders for partial coverage of a new treatment, after another considered successful.
In the ruling of Judge Miguel Angel Gálvez, the coverage of the costs is the responsibility of DAMSU of one hundred percent of the in vitro fertilization (IVF) by ICSI technique, as well as whether embryos have to be vitrified and everything necessary until the pregnancy.
Besides, he applied the gender perspective. He emphasized law 26,485, which is the law on comprehensive protection to prevent, punish and eradicate violence against women. And article 6 subsection D was crucial, which refers to violence against reproductive freedom, which is that which violates the right of women to freely and responsibly decide the number of pregnancies or the interval between births. It is also in tune with Law 25,673 for the creation of the national sexual health and responsible procreation program.
Mestre considered that it is “an avant-garde failure. It refers to the right to health, because with the fertility law infertility is considered a disease, and reproductive freedom ”.
On the other hand, in the decree that regulates law 26,862, it was established that within the Mandatory Medical Program that a person may access up to 4 low complexity and up to 3 high complexity treatments per year.
DAMSU can appeal the resolution. In that case, it would go to the Federal Court of Appeals of Mendoza.
– .
