Legal Regulation of Diagnostic Technologies in the Sphere of Human Reproduction: the Balance of Ethics and Law

O. Yu. Rybakov; N. V. Dorodonova; O. S. Rybakova

doi:10.17803/2713-0533.2026.3.37.559-584

Legal Regulation of Diagnostic Technologies in the Sphere of Human Reproduction: the Balance of Ethics and Law

O. Yu. Rybakov, N. V. Dorodonova, O. S. Rybakova

https://doi.org/10.17803/2713-0533.2026.3.37.559-584

Full Text:

PDF (Eng)

Generate QR code

Abstract

The article analyzes the legal regulation of diagnostic technologies in human reproduction, focusing on non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT). It examines the ethical and legal dilemmas arising from the introduction of this technology, including the balance between reproductive autonomy and non-directive counseling, the problem of “wrongful birth” and “wrongful life,” and the risks of eugenic selection and discrimination against persons with disabilities. Through a com-parative legal analysis of the regulatory frameworks in the Russian Federation and some foreign countries, the study identifies distinct national models for balancing ethical principles and legal imperatives. The article highlights the progressive steps taken by the Russian Federation in providing accessible reproductive care, such as the inclusion of NIPT in state guarantees. The purpose of this article is to systematically evaluate the ethical-legal nexus of diagnostic reproductive technologies and to substantiate doctrinally sound pathways for enhancing national regulatory frameworks without compromising sovereign constitutional values.

Keywords

human rights, legal ethics, legal regulation, human reproduction, legal engineering, diagnostic technologies, non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT), invasive prenatal testing (IPT), preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD), diagnostic reproductive technologies (DRT), comparative bioethics, constitutional values

About the Authors

O. Yu. Rybakov

Kutafin Moscow State Law University (MSAL)
Russian Federation

Oleg Yu. Rybakov, Dr. Sci. (Law), Dr. Sci. (Philosophy), Professor, Head of the Philosophy and Sociology Department

Moscow

N. V. Dorodonova

Kutafin Moscow State Law University (MSAL)
Russian Federation

Nataliya V. Dorodonova , Cand. Sci. (Law), Associate Professor, Department of Constitutional and Municipal Law

Moscow

O. S. Rybakova

Kutafin Moscow State Law University (MSAL)
Russian Federation

Olga S. Rybakova, Cand. Sci. (Law), Associate Professor, Department of Constitutional and Municipal Law

Moscow

References

1. Allyse, M., Minear, M.A, Berson, E., Sridhar, S., Rote, M., Hung, A. and Chandrasekharan, S., (2015). Non-invasive prenatal testing: a review of international implementation and challenges. International Journal of Women’s Health, 7, pp. 113–126, doi: 10.2147/IJWH.S67124.

2. Baranova, E.E., Izhevskaya, V.L. and Efremova, E.E., (2024). Organisational complexities and ethical aspects of identifying incidental findings in whole-genome non-invasive prenatal testing. Medical Genetics, 23(3), pp. 12–20, doi: 10.25557/2073-7998.2024.03.12–20. (In Russ.).

3. Bowman-Smart, H., Wiesemann, C. and Horn, R., (2023). Noninvasive prenatal testing in Germany: a unique ethical and policy landscape. European Journal of Human Genetics, 31(5), pp. 562–567, doi: 10.1038/s41431-022-01256-x.

4. Dovnar, A.N., (2025). Human Embryo: What or Who: Review of the Panel Discussion of the XIII St. Petersburg International Legal Forum 2025. Medical Law: Theory and Practice, 11, 1–2 (27–28), pp. 9–23. (In Russ.).

5. Frolova, O.G., Suchanova, L.P., Volgina, V.P. and Grebennik, T.K., (2012). Prenatal diagnostics is a key objective of regional healthcare modernization programmes. Obstetrics and Gynecology, 5, pp. 75–78. (In Russ.).

6. Frolovskaya, Y.I. and Bondarenko, T.A., (2025). Legal aspects of the embryo status: theory and practice. Journal of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 21(5), pp. 100–104. (In Russ.).

7. Gekas, J., Langlois, S., Ravitsky, V., Audibert, F., van den Berg, D.G., Haidar, H. and Rousseau, F., (2016). Non-invasive prenatal testing for fetal chromosome abnormalities: review of clinical and ethical issues. The Application of Clinical Genetics, 15, pp. 15–26, doi: 10.2147/tagg.s85361.

8. Gil, M.M., Quezada, M.S., Revello, R., Akolekar, R. and Nicolaides, K.H., (2015). Analysis of cell-free DNA in maternal blood in screening for fetal aneuploidies: updated meta-analysis. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology, 45(3), pp. 249–266, doi: 10.1002/uog.14791.

9. Gnetetskaya, V.A., Baranova, E.E., Belenikin, M.S., Tarasova, Yu.A., Izevskaya, V.L. and Kurtser, M.A., (2018). Positive and negative predictive values of noninvasive prenatal tests in group of women with high and low risk of the fetal aneuploidies. Medical Genetics, 17(12), pp. 30–35, doi: 10.25557/2073-7998.2018.12.30–35. (In Russ.).

10. Kravets, I.A., (2025). Bioethical constitutionalism and the principles of vulnerability and solidarity (in the context of globalization and international soft biolaw). Law and State, 3(108), pp. 49–65, doi: 10.51634/2307-5201_2025_3_49. (In Russ.).

11. Kravets, I.A., (2023). Dignitatis Humanae and Human Rights in Philosophical and Legal Existence and in Contemporary Constitutionalism: Division and Reunification. Vestnik of Saint-Petersburg University. Philosophy and Conflict Studies, 39(3), pp. 445–461, doi: 10.21638/spbu17.2023.304. (In Russ.).

12. Kravets, I.A. et al., (2023). Reproductive biojurisprudence and organizational and legal foundations of new forms of “assisted pregnancy”: risks, problems, prospects. Journal of the Siberian Federal University, Series: Humanities, 18(7), pp. 1434–1444. (In Russ.).

13. Lannoo, L., van der Meij, K.R.M., Bekker, M.N. et al., (2023). A cross-country comparison of pregnant women’s decision-making and perspectives when opting for non-invasive prenatal testing in the Netherlands and Belgium. Prenatal Diagnosis, 43(3), pp. 294–303, doi: 10.1002/pd.6329.

14. Lapaeva, V.V., (2021). Preimplantation and prenatal genetic diagnostics in Russian Federation: ethical and legal issues. RUDN Journal of Law, 25(1), pp. 179–197, doi: 10.22363/2313-2337-2021-251-179-197. (In Russ.).

15. Lapaeva, V.V., (2023). Status of Human Embryo in vitro as Ethical and Legal Issue: Religious Origins of Disagreements in Approaches. Law. Journal of the Higher School of Economics, 16(2), pp. 4–24, doi: 10.17323/2072-8166.2023.2.4.24. (In Russ.).

16. Lebina, V.A., Shikhalakhova, O.Kh., Kokhan, A.A., Rashidov, I.Yu., Tazhev, K.A., Filippova, A.V., Myshinskaya, E.P., Symolkina, Yu.V., Ibuev, Yu.I., Mataeva, A.A., Sirotenko, A.N., Gabaraeva, T.T. and Askerova, A.I., (2025). Opportunities and limitations of introducing artificial intelligence technologies into reproductive medicine. Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproduction, 19(3), pp. 423–442, doi: 10.17749/2313-7347/ob.gyn.rep.2025.591. (In Russ.).

17. Liehr, T., (2024). Noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) results are less accurate the later applied during pregnancy. Taiwanese Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology, 63(6), pp. 892–895, doi: 10.1016/j.tjog.2024.05.027.

18. Muravyova, I.V. and Eliseeva, N.Yu., (2023). Bioethical aspects of the use of reproductive technologies. Tambov Medical Journal, 5(2), pp. 67–72, doi: 10.20310/2782-5019-2023-5-2-67-72. (In Russ.).

19. Nekoteneva, M.V. et al., (2024). The problems of legal regulation of per-conception diagnostics (per-conception screening) in the Russian Federation. Problems of Social Hygiene, Public Health and History of Medicine, 32(6), pp. 1330–1335, doi: 10.32687/0869-866X-2024-32-6-1330-1335. (In Russ.).

20. O’Keeffe, R. and Doyle, S., (2025). Non-invasive prenatal testing: Navigating the ethical, legal, and social frontiers of modern obstetric practice. International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics, 171(2), pp. 491–494, doi: 10.1002/ijgo.70534.

21. Perrot, A. and Horn, R., (2022). Health professionals and scientists’ views on genome-wide NIPT in the French public health system: Critical analysis of the ethical issues raised by prenatal genomics. PloS one, 17(11), e0277010, doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0277010.

22. Plotnikova, E.S., (2022). Constitutional and legal status of the embryo and the implementation of human reproductive rights in the context of socially oriented urbanization. Urban Planning Law, 3, pp. 41–44, doi: 10.18572/2500-0292-2022-3-41-44. (In Russ.).

23. Sawai, T., Ishida, S., Kobayashi, C. et al., (2025). Regulating stem cell-based embryo model research in Japan. EMBO Reports, 26(7), pp. 1682–1687, doi: 10.1038/s44319-025-00409-5.

24. Simon, C. and Rubio, C., (2017). Handbook of New Genetic Diagnostic Technologies in Reproductive Medicine: Improving Patient Success Rates and Infant Health (1st ed.). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, Taylor and Francis Group. 179 p. DOI: 10.1201/9781315119793.

25. Taylor-Phillips, S., Freeman, K., Geppert, J., Agbebiyi, A., Uthman, O.A., Madan, J., Clarke, A., Quenby, S. and Clarke, A., (2016). Accuracy of non-invasive prenatal testing using cell-free DNA for detection of Down, Edwards and Patau syndromes: a systematic review and metaanalysis. BMJ Open, 6(1), e010002, doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010002.

26. Zhuchenko, L.A., Goloshubov, P.A. and Izhevskaya, V.L., (2017). Analysis of the causes of rejection of pregnant women at risk of chromosomal abnormalities in the fetus from invasive prenatal diagnosis. Medical Genetics, 16(9), pp. 10–15. (In Russ.).

Review

For citations:

Rybakov O.Yu., Dorodonova N.V., Rybakova O.S. Legal Regulation of Diagnostic Technologies in the Sphere of Human Reproduction: the Balance of Ethics and Law. Kutafin Law Review. 2026;13(3):559-584. https://doi.org/10.17803/2713-0533.2026.3.37.559-584

JATS XML