The article examines the contemporary status of recognizing individuals’ rights to access assisted reproductive technologies (ART) in Ukraine within the framework of reproductive human rights. It highlights that the broad integration of ART into the healthcare system and the safeguarding of individuals’ access to such services may serve as a significant mechanism for addressing the country’s demographic decline, which has been exacerbated by military conflict, economic instability, forced migration, and population aging.This research aims to elucidate the legal framework governing individuals’ rights to access assisted reproductive technologies (ART) in Ukraine, positioning this right as an integral component of the broader human right to reproductive autonomy. The study aims to identify existing challenges within the current legal regulation of ART-related relationships in Ukraine. To achieve this objective, the research employs several methodological approaches: dialectical method facilitates the exploration of the dynamic relationship between the evolution of reproductive rights and the legal recognition of individuals’ rights to utilize ART in Ukraine; comparative legal method by comparing Ukraine’s civil law regulations on ART with those of other jurisdictions, this method helps to contextualize Ukraine’s legal stance within the global landscape of reproductive rights. Forecasting technique has been used to anticipate potential shortcomings in the current civil legislation and to propose pathways for enhancing the legal regulation of ART in Ukraine. The study’s findings are expected to contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of the legal intricacies surrounding ART in Ukraine and to inform future legislative developments aimed at safeguarding individuals’ reproductive rights.

 A significant deficiency in the current legislative framework of Ukraine, which hinders the effective protection of reproductive human rights, lies in the absence of clear legal regulation regarding the status of reproductive cells and embryos; the ambiguity surrounding the formal procedure by which an individual may authorize the use of their reproductive material posthumously; the lack of clarity regarding the categories of individuals permitted to access such material after the donor’s death; and the absence of a legal mechanism governing the inheritance rights of children conceived posthumously, thereby highlighting the need for comprehensive legislative regulation of postmortem reproduction.

 In the context of analyzing personal non-property rights concerning assisted reproductive technologies (ART), the author posits that such rights should be regarded as an integral component of the broader category of personal non-property rights that safeguard the natural existence of the individual. This perspective aligns with the Civil Code of Ukraine, which enumerates personal non-property rights essential to an individual’s natural existence, including the right to health care, the right to medical assistance, the right to access information regarding one’s health, the right to confidentiality of health-related information, the right to liberty, the right to personal integrity, the right to body donation, and family rights – all of which are either directly or indirectly connected to the regulation and protection of individual non-property rights within the scope of ART.

 The conclusions underscore that a fundamental objective of contemporary legal theory and practice in Ukraine is the recognition of the individual’s right to access assisted reproductive technologies (ART) as an essential component of the broader human right to reproduction. Nevertheless, there is currently no consistent or comprehensive legal understanding of this right, nor of reproductive rights in general. Given that the application of ART constitutes a form of medical activity and falls within the realm of health care services, it is appropriate to consider it as a subject of civil law regulation. In this regard, ART should be associated with the regulation of specific personal non-property rights, including the right to medical care involving ART, the right to access healthrelated information, the right to one’s biological material (such as sperm, oocytes, and embryos), as well as the legal regulation of contractual relations, particularly those concerning donation and surrogacy.

Bibliography

Journal articles

1. Boldizhar S, ‘Pravove rehuliuvannia donorstva pry zastosuvanni reproduktyvnykh tekhnolohii’ [2019] 1(26)3 Prykarpatskyi yurydychnyi visnyk 13–16 (in Ukrainian).

2. Dluhopolska T, ‘Pravova pryroda reproduktyvnykh prav fizychnykh osib’ [2016] 2 Aktualni problemy pravoznavstva 103–107 (in Ukrainian).

3. Dutko A, Zabolotna M, ‘Zakriplennia reproduktyvnykh prav osoby u simeinomu zakonodavstvi’ [2016] 845 Visnyk Natsionalnoho universytetu “Lvivska politekhnika”. Yurydychni nauky 257–262 (in Ukrainian).

4. Dutko A, Zabolotna M, ‘Reproduktyvni prava fizychnoi osoby: sutnist, poniattia ta klasyfikatsiia’ [2016] 3 Naukovyi visnyk Lvivskoho derzhavnoho universytetu vnutrishnikh sprav. Seriia yurydychna 82–90 (in Ukrainian).

5. Kurylo T, ‘Osoblyvosti pravovoho rehuliuvannia reproduktyvnykh prav fizychnoi osoby’ [2017] 2 Porivnialno-analitychne pravo 66–68 (in Ukrainian).

6. Markovych Kh, ‘Reproduktyvni prava fizychnoi osoby: problemy normatyvno-pravovoho rehuliuvannia’ [2022] 8 Yurydychnyi naukovyi elektronnyi zhurnal 131 (in Ukrainian).

7. Matseliukh I, Musiienko M, ‘Do problemy vyznachennia zmistu dopomizhnykh reproduktyvnykh tekhnolohii v naukovii literaturi ta zakonodavstvi’ [2023] 2 Pivdennoukrainskyi pravnychyi chasopys 100–103 (in Ukrainian).

8. Michurin Ye, ‘Dopomizhni reproduktyvni tekhnolohii: tsyvilno-pravove rehuliuvannia’ [2024] 6(102) Universytetski naukovi zapysky 4–12 (in Ukrainian).

9. Riabenko O, ‘Pravo fizychnoi osoby na reproduktsiiu (vidtvorennia): poniattia ta istorykopravovi aspekty stanovlennia’ [2015] 30(1) Naukovyi visnyk Uzhhorodskoho natsionalnoho universytetu. Seriia pravo 148–151 (in Ukrainian).

10. Stefanchuk R, ‘Poniattia, systema, osoblyvosti zdiisnennia i zakhystu reproduktyvnykh prav fizychnoi osoby’ [2004] 1–2 Visnyk Khmelnytskoho instytutu rehionalnoho upravlinnia ta prava 66–72 (in Ukrainian).

Theses

11. Checherskyi V, ‘Pravo na reproduktsiiu (vidtvorennia) u systemi osnovopolozhnykh prav liudyny: konstytutsiino-pravove doslidzhennia’ (dys d-ra yuryd nauk, 2020) (in Ukrainian).

Newspaper articles

12. Tsyrfa Yu, ‘Pravovyi status ditei in vitro: teper donarstvo = batkivstvo?’ (Viche cherven 2013 № 11) <https://veche.kiev.ua/journal/3685> (accessed 25.04.2025) (in Ukrainian).

Websites

13. Doderzhannia prava hromadian na biolohichne batkivstvo/materynstvo v umovakh voiennoho stanu (Sekretariat Upovnovazhenoho Verkhovnoi Rady Ukrainy z prav liudyny 04.12.2024) <https://ombudsman.gov.ua/news_details/doderzhannya-prava-gromadyannabiologichne-batkivstvomaterinstvo-v-umovah-voyennogo-stanu> (accessed 25.04.2025) (in Ukrainian).

14. Moskalenko K, ‘Dopomizhni reproduktyvni tekhnolohii: na shcho maiut pravo ukraintsi v umovakh voiennoho stanu?’ (Vyshcha shkola advokatury NAAU 31.03.2024) <https://www. hsa.org.ua/lectors/katerina-moskalenko/articles/dopomizni-reproduktivni-texnologiyinashho-maiut-pravo-ukrayinci-v-umovax-vojennogo-stanu> (accessed 25.04.2025) (in Ukrainian).

15. Yak i de likuvatymut bezpliddia derzhavnym koshtom: 12 medzakladiv zakontraktovano NSZU (Ministerstvo okhorony zdorov’ia Ukrainy, 21.02.2024) <https://moz.gov.ua/uk/jakide-likuvatimut-bezpliddja-derzhavnim-koshtom-12-medzakladiv-zakontraktovano-nszu> (accessed 25.04.2025) (in Ukrainian).