Legal Aspects of Posthumous Use of Reproductive Material in Assisted Reproductive Technology Programs

This article addresses the legal problems associated with the posthumous use of biological reproductive material (gametes, reproductive organ tissues, and in vitro embryos) preserved within assisted reproductive technology (ART) programs. The conducted review of 14 judicial acts of 2018–2026 identified two major types of disputes: the claim of a surviving partner for the posthumous use of biomaterial and the claim of third parties (parents, other relatives) for the right to dispose of the biomaterial of the deceased. The author shows that the outcome of such cases is determined primarily by the doctrinal approach of the court regarding the role of the lifetime declaration of will, rather than by the factual circumstances or the wording of the informed voluntary consent (IVC). The systemic impossibility of protecting the rights of third parties to the biomaterial of the deceased under the existing closed list of indications for ART is revealed. Particular attention is paid to oncofertility as a specific context of posthumous reproduction. The authors argue for the introduction of a dedicated institution of a special (reproductive) declaration of will and identify the key directions for legislative reform, including amendments to Federal Law No. 323-FZ, the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, and the ART Procedure.

1. Akhmetyanova, Z.A., Garaeva, G.Kh., Nizamieva, O.N., Opykhtina, E.G. (2022). Embryo in vitro: on the issue of legal status (from the standpoint of civil law). Legal Bulletin, 7(2), 80–91. (In Russ.).

2. Belova, D.A. (2019). Legal nature of the embryo in vitro. Lex Russica, (6), 122–130. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.17803/1729-5920.2019.151.6.122-130

3. Birenbaum-Carmeli, D. (2016). Thirty-five years of assisted reproductive technologies in Israel. Reproductive Biomedicine & Society Online, 2, 16–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbms.2016.05.004

4. Bunyaeva, E.S., Kirillova, A.O., Khabas, G.N., Abubakirov, A.N., Mishieva, N.G. (2021). Modern methods of preserving fertility in patients with cancer of the reproductive system. Akusherstvo i ginekologiia =

5. Obstetrics and Gynecology, (7), 45–52. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.18565/aig.2021.7.45-52

6. Druzhinina, Yu. F. (2017). Legal regime of the embryo in vitro. Journal of Russian Law, 5(12), 129–140. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.12737/article_5a200506899599.19842755

7. Farid, M.S., Tasnim, S. (2023). Assisted reproductive technologies: comparing Abrahamic monotheistic religions. Asian Bioethics Review, 15(1), 53–67. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41649-022-00224-3

8. Frith, L., Blyth, E. (2014). Assisted reproductive technology in the USA: is more regulation needed? Reproductive BioMedicine Online, 29(4), 516–523. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2014.06.018

9. Gnatik, E.N., Gnatik, E.A. (2012). On the relevance of creating legal protection of life at the prenatal stage. RUDN Journal of Law, (2), 48–54. (In Russ.).

10. Gromova, M.G., Abakumov, M.A. (2025). Postmortem reproduction in Israel: between the autonomy of will and the collective right to reproduction. Legal Bulletin, 10(4), 38–49. (In Russ.).

11. Komkova, G.N., Basova, A.V. (2020). Medical and legal problems of nursing children with extremely low body weight. Rossiyskiy Vestnik Perinatologii i Pediatrii = Russian Bulletin of Perinatology and Pediatrics, 65(2), 99–103. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.21508/1027-4065-2020-65-2-99-103

12. Kosenko, E.V., Demkina, E.A. (2017). Rights to reproductive material: foreign experience. Saratov State Law Academy Bulletin, 4(117), 92–96. (In Russ.).

13. Kreß, H. (2023). Ethical Criteria of Reproductive Medicine. In: Andrology: Male Reproductive Health and Dysfunction (pp. 825–836). Cham: Springer International Publishing.

14. Lavrinovich, O.E., Karitsky, A.P., Kotiv, H.B. (2024). Relevance and legal basis for preserving fertility in cancer patients: institutional experience and literature review. Voprosy Oncology, 70(2), 368–376. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.37469/0507-3758-2024-70-2-368-376

15. Perevozchikova, E.V., Pankratova, E.A. (2006). Constitutional right to life and legal status of the human embryo. Medical Law, (2), 16–23. (In Russ.).

16. Pozdeeva, V.S. (2023). Problems of establishing paternity in postmortem reproduction. Issues of Russian Justice, (17), 390–396. (In Russ.).

17. Quinn, G.P., Knapp, C., Malo, T., McIntyre, J., Jacobsen, P., Vadaparampil, S.T. (2012). Physician’s Undecided Attitudes towards Posthumous Reproduction: Fertility Preservation in Cancer Patients with a Poor Prognosis. The Journal of Supportive Oncology, 10(4), 160–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.suponc.2011.09.006

18. Schenker, J.G. (2005). Assisted reproduction practice: religious perspectives. Reproductive BioMedicine Online, 10(3), 310-319. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1472-6483(10)61789-0

19. Schenker, J.G. (2008). Assisted reproductive technology: perspectives in Halakha (Jewish religious law). Reproductive BioMedicine Online, 17, 17-24. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1472-6483(10)60326-4

20. Schenker, J.G., Genazzani, A. R., Joseph, G., Schenker, B. (2023). Hot Topics in Human Reproduction. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-24903-7

21. Tsareva, L.V., Shilko, V.V. (2020). Legal status of in vitro embryos. In: Family law: modern problems of theory and practice: materials of the international round table, Minsk, October 16–17, 2020, 346–355. Minsk: BSU. (In Russ.).

22. Vasiliev, G.S. (2018). Human biomaterial as a legal object. Pravovedenie, 62(2), 308–361. https://doi.org/10.21638/11701/spbu25.2018.205

23. Wallach, E.E., Robertson, J. A. (1995). Ethical and legal issues in human embryo donation. Fertility and sterility, 64(5), 885-894. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0015-0282(16)57897-2