Cited by 58International Human Rights and Reproductive LawMedical and Health Sciences ResearchReproductive Health and Technologies

Human rights to in vitro fertilization

Open access
Zegers‐Hochschild, Fernando, Dickens, Bernard M., Dughman‐Manzur, Sandra·2013·International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics

Abstract

The Inter‐American Court of Human Rights (the Court) has ruled that the Supreme Court of Costa Rica's judgment in 2000 prohibiting in vitro fertilization (IVF) violated the human right to private and family life, the human right to found and raise a family, and the human right to non‐discrimination on grounds of disability, financial means, or gender. The Court's conclusions of violations contrary to the American Convention on Human Rights followed from its ruling that, under the Convention, in vitro embryos are not “persons” and do not possess a right to life. Accordingly, the prohibition of IVF to protect embryos constituted a disproportionate and unjustifiable denial of infertile individuals' human rights. The Court distinguished fertilization from conception, since conception—unlike fertilization—depends on an embryo's implantation in a woman's body. Under human rights law, legal protection of an embryo “from conception” is inapplicable between its creation by fertilization and completion of its implantation in utero.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ijgo.2013.07.001

Cites

11 of 11 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Zegers‐Hochschild, F., Dickens, B. M., & Dughman‐Manzur, S.
Affiliations
University of Toronto (CA)
Corresponding author
Dickens, Bernard M.
Venue
International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2013-08-06
Volume
123
Issue
1
Pages
86-89
ISSN
  • 0020-6695 (ISSN-L)
  • 0020-7292
  • 1879-3479
OpenAlex
W2003603355
Cited by
57
References
11
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 2
FWCI
9.81
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • TSpace (University of Toronto) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › International Human Rights and Reproductive Law
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Medical and Health Sciences Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Reproductive Medicine › Reproductive Health and Technologies
Keywords
in vitro fertilization, human rights, Inter-American Court of Human Rights, right to respect for private and family life, non-discrimination, embryo personhood, right to life, infertility, American Convention on Human Rights, reproductive rights
MeSH terms
Costa Rica, Female, Fertilization, Fertilization in Vitro, Humans, Human Rights, Embryo Implantation, Reproductive Rights

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review