Draft laws on ART need further refinement — UNBA

The National Bar Association of Ukraine drew attention to existing terminological discrepancies, gaps in the regulation of registries and donations, as well as the risks of disproportionate restrictions on access to assisted reproductive technologies in the draft laws submitted to parliament for consideration.

These are draft law No. 13683 of 22.08.2025 «On assisted reproductive technologies» and its alternative, No. 13683-1 dated 14 September 2025 «On the use of assisted reproductive technologies», for which the Committee on medical and pharmaceutical law and bioethics of the UNBA has prepared scientific and practical conclusions.

They propose updating the basic definitions (in particular, infertility) and bringing them into line with international medical practice, as well as using more legally correct terms such as «potential parents». It is separately emphasized that the draft lacks definitions of a number of procedures and concepts that are directly mentioned in the text or are typical for the application of ART. Among the «critical gaps», the Committee cites the lack of definition and regulation of the ART registry and proposes to lay the foundation for a state system for recording and monitoring procedures and results, as well as for the traceability of donor material through a separate donor registry.

The Committee proposes to formulate the goal of state policy not through «increasing the birth rate» but through ensuring the reproductive rights of every person and non-discriminatory access to medical services. According to the authors of the conclusion, certain prohibitions proposed in the draft law need to be narrowed and clearly adjusted according to the criterion of proportionality: this applies, in particular, to the automatic prohibition of ART for any unexpunged criminal record and restrictions for persons who «require constant outside care». The introduction of social filters unrelated to medical indications (such as the condition of «three years of marriage» for access to donor embryos), which can artificially delay infertility treatment and create inequality in access, is also criticized.

With regard to donation, the Committee proposes to spell out the compensation model more clearly: to maintain the principle of the inadmissibility of commercialisation of the human body, but at the same time to establish minimum guarantees of reimbursement of expenses and provide for compensation for time spent, risks and discomfort, as well as mandatory psychological counselling for donors.

A significant block of comments concerns the storage and disposal of biomaterial and embryos: advocates insist on certainty of deadlines, advance notification procedures, and additional safeguards before disposal. The approach based on the category of «owner» of biomaterial/embryos is criticized separately, and it is proposed to replace it with the concept of «right of disposal» and to specify the conditions for the postmortem use of reproductive cells.

The Committee also rejects the idea of special licensing for surrogacy, as set out in draft law No. 13683-1, and insists on a notarized form of surrogacy agreement and more precise legal terminology in related regulations.