JBRA Assist. Reprod. 2012;16(06):344-344
POINT OF VIEW
doi: 10.5935/1518-0557.2012.16.6.07
1President of Redlara
2Vice President of Redlara
It was with great pleasure and enthusiasm that we received the result of the judgment of the Court of Human Rights with regard to the question that was in force in Costa Rica. In the judgment of the Court on november 28 last, won the reason, the desire to provide an offspring when not possible by natural means.
We recognize the efforts of all who participated in this fight, in order to welcome the feelings of a population that suffered the limitation of both their human and reproductive rights.
Carlos Valerio Monge and his fellow public defenders were valiant in Costa Rica and there has been an extraordinary effort in unity uttering opinions of experts, directly participating in public events in Costa Rica, producing opinions and subsidizing the Court with scientific data, giving us all one dimension of what we can do when together and united. Thanks Fernando Zegers, impeccable referee appointed by WHO and thank you Maria Teresa Urbina, Director of Redlara Region of Venezuela, Colombia and the Caribbean, for their tireless work. Thanks to Ian Cooke, Sheryl Vanderpoel, Santiago Munné, Klaus Wiemer, Vera Raposo and many others who have pledged and glowed, full of enthusiasm to cooperate.
As points Fernando Zegers, the recent decision of the Court of Human Rights requires Costa Rica to re-establish the practice of assisted reproduction and make it enforceable to infertile people. Moreover, it forces the government to provide this service to individuals by a national health program, the latter on the basis of protecting the right to non-discrimination.
Perhaps most relevant to this resounding failure is that explicitly states:
1 - Reproductive rights are part of human rights and the right to found a family and the right to live autonomy privacy must be protected by the countries.
2 - Recognize infertility as a disease of the reproductive system (WHO) that generates a disability. In this context, the prohibition to perform IVF constitute discrimination against persons with a disability
3 - States that the embryo is not subject to the right to life as are the people. That protecting the embryo is exercised through the protection they are entitled to pregnant women (Article 4.1 of the Convention). Explicitly recognizes that conception begins at implantation of the embryo and not the moment of fertilization. The owner of the right to life is the pregnant woman and not the embryo.
4 - Sets that the pre implantation embryos, ie generated by in vitro fertilization techniques, are not subject to current law as individuals. Moreover, explicitly recognizes that the acquisition of status of person, is established through a gradual process and not set immediately with fertilization.
5 - Provides that the right of women to be protected by international right, cannot be affected by laws protecting embryos. That is, explicitly states the woman as head of law and not the embryo.
The ruling also requires the government to pay the costs of the victims and to provide them with psychological support for four years. A complete disclosure in the media and in the Official Journal must be provided and it forces Costa Rica to train and educate the legal persons regarding reproductive rights.
We are at a crucial moment in the history of the fight for reproductive rights, especially to women in the Americas. The Presidency and Board of Directors of REDLARA are very proud of our institution’s effective participation in this process as an active part of a moment in history.