Ricerc@Sapienza

The present letter is meant as a response to the commentary titled “Medically-assisted procreation and the rise of off-center, new types of “parenthood”: it is incumbent upon lawmakers to intervene”, which was published in issue 4, 2019, of the La Clinica Terapeutica journal. Newly available reproductive techniques have given rise to new opportunities to fulfill one's wishes for parenthood. Such developments have caused procreation to be perceived as a right, intended as the right to «artificial» procreation.

Surrogate motherhood is one of today’s controversial issues. It is debatable whether or not surrogacy is consistent with human rights. Consequently, State reactions to surrogacy range widely. People from countries where surrogacy is banned or strictly regulated have been increasingly resorting to surrogate motherhood abroad. Hence the question about the continuity of the family status created abroad through surrogacy. Also the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has dealt with that problem, mainly in the Mennesson, Labassee, and Paradiso et Campanelli cases.

Cross-border surrogacy has become increasingly common: people from countries where surrogacy is forbidden make recourse to it abroad. Yet, the home country’s ban on surrogacy may prevent the continuity of the family status established abroad. Such cases have been brought also before the European Court of Human Rights for the alleged violation of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The judgment that the Grand Chamber issued in the Paradiso et Campanelli c.