Current Issues of Cryopreservation and Storage of Human Reproductive Biomaterial

With the development of assisted reproductive technologies (ART), contracts covering cryopreservation and the storage of germ cells, as well reproductive organ tissues and embryos are beginning to find wide practical application. Parties to such contracts are faced with questions not currently set out in the current legislation of the Russian Federation. This aim of this article is to identify legal models capable of resolving the most pressing issues arising from these contracts. It is proposed that the following types of biomaterial be reviewed as a continuation of the human body: reproductive biomaterial extracted from the human body in the aims of subsequent reintroduction, and capable of fulfilling that biological function for which it is designated; as well as material aimed at restoration or improvement of organ function. Any intervention upon such biomaterial should be qualified as intervention upon human health. Thus any medical organization found to be in violation of its obligation to preserve health must compensate for any damage caused to a patient’s reproductive health - as set out in the rules of chapter 59 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. The author suggests the notion of “abandoned biomaterial” be incorporated in Russian legislation. “Abandoned biomaterial” presupposes the termination of the rights of a person to this biomaterial and enables the medical organization, while ensuring its preservation, to utilize such biomaterial or to use it for research purposes. This would ensure the protection of human rights and legitimate the interests of the contracting party in the event of any violation of the terms of the contract by the client. The author also proposes legal models for the resolution of conflicts related to the plurality of contractual parties, as well as to postmortem human reproduction.

1. Aleynikova, V.V. (2022). Current Issues of the Court Practice in the Sphere of Assisted Reproductive Technologies. Zakon, (6), 126–138. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.37239/0869-4400-2022-19-6-126-138

2. Bellivier, F., Noiville, C. (2004). The commercialisation of human biomaterials: what are the rights of donors of biological material?. Journal of International Biotechnology Law, (1), 89–97. https://doi.org/10.1515/jibl.2004.1.3.89

3. Belova, D.A. (2021). Legal Framework for Reproductive Biological Material. Lex Russica, 74(7), 111–121. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17803/1729-5920.2021.176.7.111-121

4. Bogdanova, E.E., Maleina, M.N., Belova, D.A. (2022). Protection of Citizens' Rights when Using Genomic Technologies: Civil Law Aspect. Moscow: Prospekt Publ. (In Russ.).

5. Bogdanova, E.E. (2019). On the Rights to Human Biomaterial. Civil Law, (4), 28–32. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.18572/2070-2140-2019-4-28-32

6. Bogdanova, E.E., Belova, D.A. (2021). Artificial human reproduction. Search for an optimal model of legal regulation. Moscow: Prospekt Publ. (In Russ.).

7. Bunge, R.G., Sherman, J.K. (1953). Fertilizing capacity of frozen human spermatozoa. Nature, 172(4382), 767–768. https://doi.org/10.1038/172767b0

8. Chen, C. (1988). Pregnancies af ter human oocyte cryopreservation. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 541(1), 541–549. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.1988.tb22290.x

9. Douglas, S., Goold, I. (2016). Property in human biomaterials: a new methodology. The Cambridge Law Journal, 75(3), 478–504. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008197316000556

10. Krasavchikova, L.O. (1994). The concept and system of personal rights of citizens (individuals) not related to property in the civil law of the Russian Federation (Dissertation, Ural State Law Academy). Ekaterinburg. (In Russ.).

11. Maddox, N. (2016). ‘Abandonment’ and the acquisition of property rights in separated human biomaterials. Medical Law International, 16(3-4), 229–251. https://doi.org/10.1177/0968533216679486

12. Maleina, M.N. (2021). Agreement for Cryopreservation and Storage of Human Biological Material in a Personal Biobank. Journal of Russian Law, 25(4), 71–82. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.12737/jrl.2021.046

13. Porcu, E., Fabbri, R., Seracchioli, R., Ciotti, P.M., Magrini, O., Flamigni, C. (1997). Birth of a healthy female af ter intracytoplasmic sperm injection of cryopreserved human oocytes. Fertility and Sterility, 68(4), 724–726. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0015-0282(97)00268-9

14. Romanovsky, G.B. (2009). Reproductive rights in Russia and the CIS countries: comparative legal research. Penza: Penza State University. (In Russ.).

15. Trounson, A., Mohr, L. (1983). Human pregnancy following cryopreservation, thawing and transfer of an eight-cell embryo. Nature, 305(5936), 707–709. https://doi.org/10.1038/305707a0

16. Vasilevich, D.G. (2023). The concept of reproductive rights. Bulletin of the Moscow University of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia, (1), 56–61. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.24412/2073-0454-2023-1-56-61

17. Walker, A.R. (2024, February 20). Alabama supreme court rules frozen embryos are ‘children’. The Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/feb/20/alabamasupreme-court-frozen-embryos-children-ruling-ivf.

18. Zeilmaker, G.H., Alberda, A.T., Van Gent, I., Rijkmans, C.M., Drogendijk, A.C. (1984). Two pregnancies following transfer of intact frozen-thawed embryos. Fertility and Sterility, 42(2), 293–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0015-0282(16)48029-5