Constitutional-legal dispute on posthumous reproduction: presumption of consent or disagreement?
https://doi.org/10.52468/2542-1514.2025.9(4).58-67
Abstract
The subject. The article considers a constitutional-legal dispute on posthumous reproduction, which became the subject of consideration in the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation in 2024. On February 11, 2025, the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation issued a decision recognizing that norms of the legislation on social security are violated the Constitution of the Russian Federation. This decision gives rise to a number of new legal problems in the field of constitutional, civil, inheritance, medical law and social security law. At present, there is no legislative regulation of posthumous reproduction in the Russian Federation.
The purpose of the article:
– to establish the presence or absence of positive obligations of the state in relation to the somatic right to reproductive choice;
– to determine the presumption of consent or disagreement to posthumous reproduction;
– to propose possible measures to prevent constitutional conflicts related to posthumous reproduction.
The methodology of the study includes general scientific methods (analysis, synthesis, description) and legal methods, method of constitutional conflict diagnosis. In addition to this, historical method was also applicable. The article also uses a comparative legal method to analyze the legislation and practice of foreign countries such as the USA, France and Japan.
Main results. The author proposes to eliminate the legislative gap by establishing at the statutory level a presumption of consent or disagreement in accordance with the following legislative formulas:
– presumption of consent: posthumous reproduction using the sex cells (or embryos created with their help) of a deceased person is not permitted if the medical organization was informed at the time of using the relevant assisted reproductive technologies that the person, during his or her lifetime, declared his or her disagreement with the use of his or her sex cells (or embryos created with their help) for the purpose of procreation after death;
– presumption of disagreement: posthumous reproduction using the sex cells (or embryos created with their help) of a deceased person is permitted only if the medical organization has, at the time of using the relevant assisted reproductive technologies, a written expression of the person's will, given during his or her lifetime, of consent to the use of his or her sex cells (or embryos created with their help) after death for the purpose of procreation.
About the Author
I. A. Tretiak
HSE University
Россия
Россия
Irina A. Tretiak – PhD in Law, Associate Professor, Public Law Department
20, Myasnitskaya ul., Moscow, 101000
ResearcherID: AAY-6218-2021
AuthorID: 762457
References
1. Tretiak I.A. Constitutional aspects of posthumous reproduction in Russia and foreign countries. Pravoprimenenie = Law Enforcement Review, 2024, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 44–53. DOI: 10.52468/2542-1514.2024.8(4).44-53.
2. Khapsirokova E.A. Human rights protection in sphere of experimental biomedical research. Zakonodatel’stvo, 2020, no. 5, pp. 44–49. (In Russ.).
3. Bibik O.N. Time of life as a key factor, determining human behavior. Vestnik Omskogo universiteta. Seriya “Pravo” = Herald of Omsk University. Series “Law”, 2022, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 35–47. DOI: 10.24147/1990-5173.2022.19(3).35-47. (In Russ.).
4. Petrov E.Yu. Transactions mortis causa, in: Chastnoe pravo. Preodolevaya ispytaniya, To the 60th anniversary of B.M. Gongalo, Moscow, Statut Publ., 2016, pp. 213–237. (In Russ.).
5. Putintseva E.P. Orders in case of death under the legislation of the Russian Federation and the Federal Republic of Germany. Moscow, Statut Publ., 2016. 160 p. (In Russ.).
6. Kiktenko K.G., Kirilina A.A. Civil grounds for donation. Zakon, 2023, no. 8, pp. 179–207. DOI: 10.37239/0869-4400-2023-20-179-207. (In Russ.).
7. Filippova S.Yu. Instructions in case of death: an experience of systematization of private law norms. Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta. Seriya 11. Pravo = Moscow University Bulletin. Series 11. Law, 2017, no. 4, pp. 29–46. (In Russ.).
8. Codrin C. A Comparative Inquiry Into The Legal Regime Of Mortis Causa Donations In Some Continental-European And Common Law Legal Systems. Knowledge-Based Organization, 2015, vol. 21, iss. 2, pp. 418–423. DOI: 10.1515/kbo-2015-0071.
9. Goncharova V.A. Posthumous donation: in search of optimal legal regulation. Zakonodatel’stvo, 2022, no. 5, pp. 30–37. (In Russ.).
10. Binet J.R. Presumed consent and expression of disagreement to posthumous organ removal in French law. Pretsedenty Evropeiskogo Suda po pravam cheloveka, 2017, no. 9, pp. 32–45. (In Russ.).
11. Evdokimov V.B., Tukhvatullin T.A. Right of a citizen of the Russian Federation to refuse post-mortem removal of organs for transplanting purposes: legal problems of its implementation. Aktual’nye problemy rossiiskogo prava = Actual problems of Russian law, 2015, no. 1, pp. 59–63. (In Russ.).
12. Kulitskaya L.I. Legal regime of human organs, tissues, cells and body after the death of the person without a will. Vlast’ zakona = The Power of law, 2016, no. 2, pp. 96–106. (In Russ.).
13. Gilifanova A.Sh. Legal problems of transplantation of human organs and tissues in Russia and foreign countries. Probely v rossiiskom zakonodatel’stve = Gaps in Russian legislation, 2014, no. 5, pp. 172–174. (In Russ.).
14. Blokhin P.D. The structure and lawful limitations upon fundamental rights: Russian constitutional model. Zakon, 2022, no. 12, pp. 14–33. DOI: 10.37239/0869-4400-2022-19-12-14-33. (In Russ.).
15. Bakhin S.V. On the classification of human rights as declared by international agreements. Izvestiya vysshikh uchebnykh zavedenii. Pravovedenie = Proceedings of Higher Educational Institutions. Pravovedenie, 1991, no. 2, pp. 41–51. (In Russ.).
16. Gasanov K.K., Velezhev S.I., Kolokol'tsev V.A., Shkhagapsoev Z.L., Sal'nikov S.P. Absolute human rights and restrictions of rights. Vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskogo universiteta MVD Rossii = Vestnik of the St. Petersburg University of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia, 2003, no. 3 (19), pp. 54–65. (In Russ.).
17. Vakhrameeva L.N. The Dignity of the Personality in the System of Human Rights: Problems of the Theory and Legal Regulation. Yuridicheskaya nauka i praktika = Juridical Science and Practice, 2019, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 117–122. DOI: 10.25205/2542-0410-2019-15-2-117-122. (In Russ.).
18. Simpson B. Making “bad” deaths “good”: the kinship consequences of posthumous conception. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 2001, vol. 7, iss. 1, pp. 1–18. DOI: 10.1111/1467-9655.00047.
19. Davies H. Sharing Surnames: Children, Family and Kinship. Sociology, 2011, vol. 45, iss. 4. pp. 554–569. DOI: 10.1177/0038038511406600.
20. Simana S. Creating life after death: should posthumous reproduction be legally permissible without the deceased's prior consent?. Journal of Law and the Biosciences, 2018, vol. 5, iss. 2, pp. 329–354. DOI: 10.1093/jlb/lsy017.
21. Ahluwalia U., Arora M. Posthumous Reproduction and Its Legal Perspective. International Journal of Infertility and Fetal Medicine, 2011, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 9–14. DOI: 10.5005/JP-JOURNALS-10016-1010.
22. Aleynikova V.V. Posthumously conceived children in family and inheritance law: “To be, or not to be, that is the question...”. Zakon, 2023, no. 4, pp. 137–157. DOI: 10.37239/0869-4400-2023-20-4-137-157. (In Russ.).
23. Dolinskaya V.V. Protection of the hereditary rights of minors. Zakony Rossii: opyt, analiz, praktika, 2023, no. 6, pp. 12–17. (In Russ.).
24. Tretyak I.A. Prevention and resolution of constitutional conflicts: concept and methods. Pravoprimenenie = Law Enforcement Review, 2019, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 30–41. DOI: 10.24147/2542-1514.2019.3(4).30-41.
Review
For citations:
Tretiak I.A. Constitutional-legal dispute on posthumous reproduction: presumption of consent or disagreement? Law Enforcement Review. 2025;9(4):58-67. https://doi.org/10.52468/2542-1514.2025.9(4).58-67
Views:
34
JATS XML
Email this article 