Publications

Not long ago demography was declared the fifth national project. It seems that it should be the first one in respect of importance, cause if the demographic situation in Russia continues to worsen with the same pace, all other projects will just become irrelevant: there will be no one to live in new houses, no one to be cured by new doctors, teachers will have no pupils, and no one will work in the country.

The population of Russia decreases every year. The mortality rate is being higher than the birth rate already for 10 years. For every 1000 people in Russia there are only 9.95 newborns a year (13 newborns in 1991). From 1992 to 2005 the population of Russia has decreased by 5 761 141. According to the official data provided by Federal State Statistic Service, in 2003 the population of Russia has decreased by 796 000 people, in 2004 by 694 thousand, and in 2005 - by 765 800 people. It should be mentioned that natural population decline taking into account the births-deaths ratio is even higher - 846 500 people, and is only partially compensated by migration. According to the official data, in 2025 the population will decrease from the existing 142.7 million to 137 million, in 2050 - to 100 million people, and by 2075 - to 50-55 million. From 2010 Russia will face the "demographic nosedive" because of catastrophic reduction of able-bodied population - up to 1 million people a year. This will inevitably lead to the sharp reduction of gross domestic product - approximately by 7 billion dollars a year. By 2050 for each working man there will be two or more pensioners. There will be no one to feed the growing army of the old people.

Change of the ethnic composition of Russia is a serious problem too, as the population of Russia decreases mainly for the account of the eponymous ethnic group of the Russian Federation; there is no considerable birthrate decline in the majority of national republics. In 2005 in Saint-Petersburg the birthrate was 8,57 newborns for one thousand people, whereas in Ingushetia - 14, in Dagestan - 16, and in Chechnya - 25. The population growth can be also observed in Bashkiria, Kalmykia and Tyva. At that as a rule there can be observed the decrease of Russian population - thus, during the last ten years the rate of Russian population in Ingushetia has decreased from 15% to the symbolical 4%.

One should remember that socio-demographical "skewness" is becoming more and more apparent - families of intelligentsia rarely have more than one child. This problem cannot be solved by means of migrants.

Of course the rise in births is vital, but how and by means of what can we ensure it? Should it be only material support of families by the state, or such ridiculous measures as introduction of the immoral "small-family tax"? I think that to achieve actual results as early as possible we should involve not only financial, but also legal mechanisms.

Legislation is the most important instrument of the demographic policy. Four thousand years ago the Sumerian kingdom was passing through a severe demographic crisis. In order to provide the "absolute rise in births" the law code of the King Hammurapi adopted in 1781 B. C. - the first law code known to us in the history of mankind, in which the "presumption of innocence" principle that is the fundamental principle of the modern law was formalized for the first time - has established that a sterile wife willing to have children shall give her husband a slave, at that children born by the slave - the surrogate mother - were acknowledged as the lawful children of a sterile married couple. This was the scenario according to which all three programs of "traditional" surrogate maternity in families of Abraham and his grandson Jacob described in the Old Testament were realized.

In order to cardinally improve the demographic situation in the country we also should introduce major changes into the effective laws. It is high time to realize that citizens' reproductive rights need legal protection, and that their realization depends directly on support of the state. Reproductive rights can be defined as a complex of panhuman tights and freedoms providing for realization of the fundamental inalienable right of a person to continue his family line, irrespective of his age, sex, nationality, family status and state of health, including the right to use assisted reproductive technologies, such as donor and surrogate programs, and the right to individual family planning, including the freedom of determining the number and sex of his children and time intervals between their births. Reproductive rights include the right of citizens to get information about human reproduction and their reproductive health, as well as peculiarities of realization of the reproductive programs they are interested in. Reproductive rights of citizens shall be realized on the basis of voluntariness (voluntary informed consent) and respect for legitimate rights of other citizens.

Instead of inciting those people who can but do not want to have children to childbearing using financial incentives, the state should see to the concerns of those who want to have children but cannot, due to various reasons, and provide for actual realization of their reproductive rights. Among 42 million Russian families 47% have no children at all - because of two main reasons. According to data provided by the Chief obstetrician-gynecologist of Russia, academician of the Russian Academy of Medical Sciences Vladimir Kulakov, now in Russia there are 10 million sterile people of reproductive age - 4 million men and 6 million women, that results in matrimonial sterility - at least 15% of married couples cannot have children on medical grounds. How many are they in absolute terms? According to data provided by Tatyana Yakovleva, Chairman of the Committee for Health Protection of the State Duma, now in Russia there are at least 5 million of such spouses (not long ago "Rossiiskaya Gazeta" has given the stunning figure of 8 million), at that only 3 million of married couples can have children if they undergo the necessary treatment. Thus, from 2 to 6 million of married couples of reproductive age willing to become parents shall give up their dream of their own baby. This is physiological sterility that is much spoken and talked about.

But there is also social sterility, when healthy people willing to have a child cannot achieve their dream because of imperfection of our laws. I'm talking about millions of lonely people of reproductive age (in 2005 there were more than 20 million of them in our country - 13 million men and 7 million women) not willing to join in matrimony - the phenomenon which is becoming more and more common in the modern world and in Russia as well. In accordance with article 35 of "Fundamentals of Legislation of the Russian Federation on Health Protection of Citizens" women have the right to artificial insemination, whereas single men not willing to enter into marriage are debarred from having children and their own family. This is the flat violation of several articles of Constitution of the Russian Federation, in particular, article 7 (stating that Russian state support both maternity and paternity), article 19 (about equal rights of men and women), and article 55 (about inadmissibility of laws derogating human rights).

I speak about millions of married couples where a physiologically healthy woman is working hard to weave a nest for her future children and cannot afford herself to fall out of her business life even for half a year, betaking herself to carrying the baby, to say nothing of the child-care leave. And when the nest is already weaved (usually at the age of thirty five or forty), there may be problems with reproductive health. At a rough estimate in Russia there are more than 2 million of such married couples, who will join the ranks of the formidable army of the sterile.

Sterility corrodes Russia. Every year for 1000 registered marriages there are 700 divorces, at that often it is sterility that is the divorcer.

Adoption is traditionally suggested as the solution to this problem. But the majority of people are willing to have their own children. Even if all people would have fixed affections upon mother another's children, there aren't enough children to go round - today in Russia there are about 800 000 orphans. At that 545 000 of them are already adopted or fostered. A little over 250 000 children are left - and this is for 25 million of potential adoptive parents! Besides this won't make the number of new little citizens of Russia to increase.

We can speak about adoption as the real instrument of solving the demographic problem only if the institute of prenatal adoption - when women who are about to make an abortion will have a possibility to obtain material support during pregnancy and a certain sum for rehabilitation after childbirth from potential adopters, in order to hand them over the baby - is introduced in Russia. As we know, the majority of women decide to make an abortion because of material - the impossibility to support the baby (some of them don't have enough money for the already born children) - and psychological reasons - unwillingness to assume the responsibility for the baby - and would gladly hand over the baby to the adopters, thus having got the necessary money to finally have their first baby or bring up the already born children in better environment. The birthrate increase can be expected only due to decrease of abortions - according to the official data, for 1 million 540 thousand births in Russia there are 1 million 610 thousand abortions a year, and the press gives even more horrifying figures - from 4 to 8 million abortions a year. According to statistics about 60 of 100 pregnant Russian women decide to lose pregnancy.

Besides one shall take into account that abortions - irrespective of the gestational age - inflict serious harm to reproductive health of women; many of them even become infertile after making an abortion. According to data provided by Chief obstetrician-gynecologist of Russia, academician of the Russian Academy of Medical Sciences Vladimir Kulakov, from 10 to 15% of abortions create various complications, 7-8% of women become infertile after making them. One third of all maternal deaths are caused by abortions. So very often an abortion is not only the murder of one child, but of all the subsequent children as well, which is the real threat to demographic situation in the country and its future.

I predict that skeptics-"moralists" will call prenatal adoption "trafficking in children". But is a child's salvation from death worse than its legal murder? In our country abortions after week 12 (when the fetus is expressly recognized as a baby in accordance with all international conventions signed by Russia) are still made under the veil of "abortions on social indications". So on the one scale is the life of a child, a future citizen of our country, and the fate of his mother, while on the other - idle chattering of the so-called "moralists". Which scale will overweigh?

Mechanism of prenatal adoption programs realization could be worked out on the analogy with customary adoption through custody and child welfare agencies, if there only was the political will to do so. No matter what skeptics may say, anyway this means realization of the fundamental right of a child to be born and live formalized in United Nations Organization's Convention on the Rights of the Child (New-York, 1989).

Anyway if a woman wishes to lose pregnancy the decision on abortion should be made only on the basis of a written informed consent of the mother and the child's biological father, and speaking about juveniles (every fifth abortion in Russia is made by teenagers under 18) - also with the consent of their parents. Abortions "on social indications" shall be prohibited.

The get-out for childless people willing to have their own child is surrogate maternity, t. i. carrying of a child for another family by a surrogate, substitutionary mother.

In some countries surrogate maternity is prohibited as "contradictory to human dignity" and "humiliating a woman". Among such countries are Germany, France, Italy, and Switzerland. By the way, in the above-mentioned Germany where it is prohibited to help childless couples because it is "immoral", prostitution has been legalized since 2002, and sexual services are liable for VAT and municipal tax. Turnover of the sexual services market makes up 5% of the gross domestic product. No comments.

This illogical unjust prohibition has given rise to "reproductive tourism" - every year about 1 000 families from these countries go abroad, mainly to the USA, to have children there. Chinese authorities are also planning to prohibit surrogate maternity - due to their demographic reasons.

Some moralists suggest to prohibit by statute only commercial surrogate maternity. Unfortunately, in many countries (Great Britain, Belgium, Denmark, Holland, Spain, and Republic of South Africa) politicians took their cue from these proponents of ethics. In these countries surrogate maternity contracts are illegal, and therefore impossible. There is a close control over surrogate mothers' expenses, so that not a single odd euro cent could stick to their fingers. And all this is done under the far-fetched pretext that surrogate maternity is "immoral" and "is the exploitation of women".

But how the birth of a new baby can be immoral? The baby whose birth is anticipated by his future relatives for many years? Where can be the harm in changing the life of many people for the better?

Carrying a child is a very important mission, and surrogate mothers must get a fair compensation. Is it moral? Yes. Any labour shall be paid for, and such a labour - especially. May be, from the point of view of some moralists, it would be better if doctors treat for free, teachers teach for free, writers write for free, just leaving on handouts. But we all make our living the way we can, using our skills and abilities. And the birth of a baby is an invaluable gift, the best thing that a woman can do in her life, the thing that cannot be done by any man.

In Russia surrogate maternity, including the commercial one, is authorized by statute and regulated by the following legal acts and regulatory documents:

• Russian Federation Family Code, articles 51-52;
• Fundamentals of Legislation of the Russian Federation on Health Protection of Citizens as of 22.06.93 No. 487-1, article 35 "Artificial insemination and embryo implantation";
• Law "On Documents of Civil Status" as of 15.11.97 No. 143-ÔÇ, article 16;
• Order of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation as of 26.02.03 No. 67 "On Using Assisted Reproductive Technologies (ART) in Female and Male Sterility Therapy" (registered by the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation on 24.04.03 No. 4452).

There are two types of surrogate maternity - the traditional one, when surrogate mother's oocyte is inseminated by biological father's sperm, and the gestational one - when surrogate mother doesn't have any biological linkage with the child. In Russia the situation is such that only married couples have the right to resort to the services of a surrogate mother (parents who aren't married cannot be entered into the Certificate of Birth), and only on medical indications specified by Order No. 67 of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation. Traditional surrogate programs involving insemination of a surrogate mother which are widely spread all over the world (they are ten times cheaper and could have been the way out for hundred thousand lower-income childless couples) are non-realizable in Russia, as in paragraph 4 of article 51 of the Russian Federation Family Code and article 16 of the Federal Law "On Documents of Civil Status" it is said only about in vitro fertilization (IVF).

It seems that in that case we should use foreign experiences, particularly, the American ones. Being one of the most conservative and prudish countries in the world, the USA still was the pioneer in developing the virgin land of using assisted reproductive technologies, and particularly surrogate maternity, by lawmakers. There are states where surrogate maternity (or, to be more specific, surrogate contracts or mediation in the sphere of surrogate maternity) is prohibited. Also there are states that are the Promised Land for thousands of childless couples from all over the world. First of all, it's Arkansas. Contract for services of a surrogate mother is mandatory here, parents (or one parent), t. i. customers mentioned in contract, are entered into the Certificate of Birth of a child carried by a surrogate mother without any pitfalls of the law. From the point of view of the law, the main argument when deciding on parents of a surrogate child is the intention of the parents (customers) due to which the "surrogate" child is born. So the very possibility of any jurisdictional disputes or battles for the child is closed out. If after several years parents divorce, the court is judged not by biological relationship that need not to be at all, but by a parent's ability to secure favorable environment for the child when determining with whom the child will stay.

This state is the Mecca for single parents. Both single men and women can hire surrogate mothers to continue their family line. Even if there is no biological linkage between the child and the parent, the parent-customer is entered into the Certificate of Birth as the only parent.

Laws of California and Florida are also very progressive in this respect. Californian courts have passed several very important judgments which have drastically changed the legal situation in these and many other states. The court's judgment in case "Johnson versus Culverts" (1993), when for the first time in the world legal practice the INTENTION of a woman-customer to BECOME a mother and bring up a baby carried by a surrogate mother as her own child was recognized the key point when determining maternity in gestational surrogate programs, has become the historical one. The Culverts have hired the nurse Johnson for carrying their embryo. Not long before the child's birth the Culverts abandoned the child and laid an action for recognizing the surrogate mother the real mother of their child. According to the court's judgment, Johnson, who has carried the child, was acting as "a nurse to whom the parents have entrusted the child for some time". The court has emphasized the fact that using donor oocytes doesn't prevent from recognizing the maternity of a woman-customer.

The famous Jessie Buzzanka's case has also become a landmark. John and Luanna Buzzanka, a sterile couple from California, have hired a surrogate mother to carry a child conceived in vitro using donor sperm and donor oocyte. In March 1995, six days before Jessie's birth, John laid an action for divorce arguing his desire to divorce by the fact that the marriage was infertile. He disclaimed his liabilities with respect to Jessie and refused paternity. The court has passed a judgment according to which the newborn Jessie had no parents. The girl having three fathers (the sperm donor, the surrogate mother's husband and the husband-customer) and three mothers (the oocyte donor, surrogate mother and the wife-customer) was declared an orphan and placed under Luanna's tutelage. Her legal orphancy lasted for four years until the superior court acknowledged the Buzzanka as her legitimate parents due to whom she was born. The judgment was based on paragraph 7610 of California Family Code, stating that a woman's consent to a "medical procedure that resulted in pregnancy and birth of a child" is the evidence of maternity. Luanna has officially become a mother, and John still had to provide alimony.

In special comments dedicated to the traditional surrogate maternity programs when a surrogate mother is at the same time the biological mother of a child carried by her the court noted that a mother-customer's desire to bring up the child supersedes biological kinship of the surrogate mother.

In accordance with the verdict in case Dankin versus Bosky delivered in 2000 non-matrimonial couples enjoy the same rights as married couples with respect to surrogate maternity programs realization.

Our law doesn't stipulate for a situation that may occur in case of divorce or death of spouses - biological parents before baby carried by a surrogate mother is born. In accordance with spirit and letter of the law they must be entered into the Certificate of Birth as the parents of their child. The question which parent will bring him up shall be settled in accordance with the voluntary agreement for execution of parental rights by a parent living apart from a child stipulated by paragraph 2 of article 66 of the Russian Federation Family Code, or in a judicial proceeding with the participation of custody and child welfare agencies.

Our law also says nothing about "postmortal" reproductive programs realized after biological parents' death. The fist program of surrogate maternity using the sperm of the dead biological father in Russia ended in November 2005. Ten years ago Andrey Zakharov was to undergo a course of chemotherapy in Israel. Before treatment he has given sperm samples for cryopreservation, as it is recommended in such cases. The therapy turned out to be ineffective, and eight years after Andrey died, haven't left any children behind him. The birth of grandchild has become the goal of his mother's life. Physicians of the Family Practice Center in Yekaterinburg helped her to achieve her dream. Andrey's frozen semen was brought to Yekaterinburg where gestational surrogate maternity program using a donor oocyte was realized. On November 16, 2005 a healthy boy - Ekaterina Zakharova's grandson - was born. Now Ekaterina Germanovna collects documents for adoption, because they don't want to recognize the boy as her grandson. People in courts and Civil Registry Offices believe that the boy's only relative is his surrogate mother who has given birth to him. Of course the refusal to register Ekaterina Zakharova as the boy's grandmother is illegal. The following legal scheme shall be applied here: establishment of paternity by the court - in accordance with article 49 of the Russian Federation Family Code application of a person on whom a child depends on is enough, at that the court shall consider any proofs confirming the child's descending from a specific person. If the paternity was established, Ekaterina Germanovna would have been automatically recognized as the boy's grandmother.

In the USA there were also attempts of "postmortal" reproductive programs realization. American Reproductive Medicine Association recommends to be careful when working with "postmortal" gametes and embryos, although it doesn't protest against their use if it is done in accordance with the decedent's will expressed in his testament.

Taking into account the continuously worsening ecological situation and dangers connected with technological disasters, it is vital to create in Russia the gametes and embryos bank for all people who aren't ready to have children now, but are willing to continue their family line in the future. Among the clients of such a bank there could be men who are going to do military service at flash points, people who will be subjected to chemotherapy in order to treat oncological diseases, or those who just want to keep their semen for the safe side. In each case the will of clients of such a bank shall be documented to specify what can be done with their gametes or embryos after their death and who can do this.

Russia is among those countries where the principle "mother is the one who has given birth" is the matter-of-course, and a surrogate mother has all rights to a child carried by her. In accordance with paragraph 4 of article 51 of the Russian Federation Family Code "people who are married and gave their written consent for embryo's implantation for carrying by another woman can be entered into the Certificate of Birth as the child's parents only by consent of the woman who has given birth to the child (the surrogate mother)". If she doesn't give her consent, she will be considered the child's mother with all the ensuing civil consequences. This provision is not only illogical, but absolutely unjustified as well and must be changed.

Over the recent years both public opinion and the lawyers' attitude have changed for the betted. Thus, in the Ukraine lawmakers took a more logical and sound tack. The new Family Code (article 123, paragraph 2) states that if an embryo conceived by spouses is transferred to another woman, it is the spouses who are the child's parents. Paragraph 3 of the same article acknowledges the possibility of use of donor oocytes by spouses in case of in vitro fertilization, at that embryo shall be considered descending from the spouses anyway. Thus the spouses who have given their consent for the use of assisted reproductive technologies enjoy all parental rights and duties with respect to children born as a result of such procedures.

In 2004 the law "On reproductive rights of citizens and guarantees of their implementation" was also passed in Kazakhstan. Although some provisions of the law are debatable, paragraph 4 of article 17 expressly states that "a surrogate mother has no right to refuse to hand over the child born by her to people who have entered into a contract with her, as well as to third persons". Such a law was also passed in July 2006 in Byelorussia. In accordance with article 53 of the new Family Code of Byelorussia "genetic mother shall be acknowledged as the mother of a child born by a surrogate mother". Drafting up a contract for surrogate maternity certified by a notary is the essential condition of surrogate maternity programs realization in Byelorussia and Kazakhstan. In the Ukraine, as well as in Russia, notarial certification of the contract is not necessary, that seems to be wrong as well.

It should be mentioned that such an approach is more sound and logical taking into account the specific character of relations between surrogate mother and parents and particularly the child's best interest. From the point of view of civil law a contract on carrying a child entered into by a surrogate mother and biological parents is an ordinary paid services agreement, and sacralization is not appropriate here. It seems that the best conditions for bringing up the child have been provided by his biological parents and not by the surrogate mother anyway.

Biological parents can be entered as parents of a child born by a surrogate mother into the Certificate of Birth issued by a Civil Registry Office only in case of in vitro fertilization of a surrogate mother with transfer of the parents' embryo, and only if the parents are married as of the date of making the above-mentioned entry. The text of paragraph 4 of the article 51 of the Russian Federation Family Code doesn't expressly state that a couple resorting to services of a surrogate mother shall be married. Marriage state is required by law as one of prerequisites of making an entry in the register of births, by the analogy with adoption, when people who aren't married cannot adopt the same child. In any case such a restriction is inappropriate because no law can circumscribe anybody's rights to have a common child without entering into marriage. According to data provided by Ekaterina Lakhova, head of the State Duma Committee on the Affairs of Women, Family and Children, 30% of today's Russian families are single-parent families, and more than 400 000 children are born out of wedlock. One should pay attention that, for example, in Byelorussia (to say nothing of the American experience) marriage state of biological parents is of now import at all for reproductive technologies application. In accordance with article 53 of Byelorussia Family Code genetic mother is acknowledged as the mother of a child born by a surrogate mother, and her husband - as the father of such a child. If the genetic mother isn't married to the child's father, paternity is established basing upon their joint statement.

As a rule biological parents do not advertise the fact that their baby was carried by a surrogate mother, but there are some exceptions. The most famous "biological parents" in our country are the popular singer Alena Apina and her husband, producer Alexander Iratov. Not able to have a baby in a general way, they resorted to services of a surrogate mother. An intelligent provincial with higher education, the mother of two children, agreed to carry the girl Ksyusha for substantial remuneration. The women didn't see each other after Alena has taken the girl from her surrogate mother, and do not communicate.

Olga Slutsker, president of the network of fitness centers "World Class" who is also well-known both in business circles and high society, resorted to services of the American Lucy who became the surrogate mother for her son Misha. The women are on intimate terms with each other, they became very close during carrying of the pregnancy and their families continue to communicate.

One shall pay compliments to such public figures as Alena Apina and Olga Slutsker, who speak about their positive "surrogate" experience without disguise. Besides no one can blackmail them by disclosing the secret of their babies' birth, because there is no secret at all.

Nevertheless, the law shall stipulate for the possibility of changing the place and date of birth of a "surrogate" child with the purpose of safeguarding this information, on the analogy with the existing adoption practices.

The main document determining the procedure of using reproductive technologies in Russia is the notorious Order of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation as of 26.02.03 No. 67 "On Using Assisted Reproductive Technologies (ART) in Female and Male Sterility Therapy". This document has positive, progressive character; nevertheless one cannot but mention the artificial character of some restrictions imposed by it - in particular, one can resort to surrogate mother's services only on medical indications. The Order doesn't say a word about the objective social indications, when a physiologically healthy woman cannot afford carrying a baby for various objective and subjective reasons. But whatever reason may be - physiological or social one - the result is the same: a woman is infertile. We must change this situation, thus making possible for thousands of women to become mothers at last.

In accordance with this Order in Russia only a woman of the specific age - from 20 to 35 - who already has her own child can become surrogate mother. It would have been much more sensible and logical if parents could decide by themselves who will carry their baby. As is obvious from the experience, nearest relatives of sterile parents often become surrogate mothers for free, thus making surrogate program much cheaper. The first surrogate program for relatives was realized in the Republic of South Africa in October 1987, when 48-years old Patricia Anthony has successfully carried and born three grandchildren for her 25-years old daughter.

By the way, first two surrogate maternity programs in the territory of the former USSR (1995) would have never been realized if the physicians were guided by the existing norms. In Saint-Petersburg the first surrogate program was realized in the in vitro fertilization centre at Saint-Petersburg Institute of Obstetrics and Gynecology named after D.O. Ott of the Russian Academy of Medical Sciences, at that the first surrogate mother was the biological mother's 24-years old friend who had no children of her own. She got pregnant from the first attempt. In Kharkov, as well as in the Republic of South Africa, a middle-aged woman has become surrogate mother and successfully carried the child of her daughter suffering from congenital ametria, thus becoming mother and grandmother of the child at the same time.

Removal of age limitations for surrogate mothers will allow to substantially increase the number of successful programs due to not very rich couples willing to cut down expenses at the cost of surrogate mother's remuneration.

The necessity to have the own child also constrains the number of potential surrogate mothers. It's like a vicious circle - women don't have money to have their own child and can't provide for conditions necessary to support him, so they decide to carry a child for another couple. They come to a clinic, but hear - "go away, you must have your own child first". This situation must be changed so that to give childless women a chance to have their own child by carrying a baby for another couple in the frameworks of surrogate maternity program.

The problem of legitimacy of applying pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) for choosing the sex of a future baby seems even more acute. In the course of PGD monogenic and chromosomal defects of oocytes and embryo are diagnosed and the embryo's sex is defined in order to prevent sex-linked hereditary diseases, such as hemophilia. Volitional choice of the child's sex is prohibited in some countries, for example in Great Britain. In Russia in accordance with the Order of the Russian Federation Ministry of Justice No. 67 as of 26.02.2003 such procedure is allowed only on medical indications, when there is a risk of bearing a child with an isolated gene's mutation or chromosomal anomalies.

So one can expressly state that the above-mentioned Order which is the only regulatory act in the sphere of using assisted reproductive technologies in the Russian Federation doesn't allow volitional choice of the embryo's sex and destroying embryos of the "unnecessary" sex. At the same time this Order allows for reduction of pregnancy, t. i. the very same destruction of embryos which have been considered "excessive". Abortions are not legally prohibited as well, and are in common practice in many countries. If the law reserves women the right to volitional termination of pregnancy almost at any gestational age, then we shall be consistent and reserve the married couple or people who aren't married the right to refuse from embryos of the unwanted sex before pregnancy on the same social indications.

The USA, for example, has taken this tack. Since October 2005 American reproductive clinics were allowed to use PGD technologies for choosing the child's sex in accordance with the desire of parents who wish to have the second child of another sex.

The above-mentioned provision 67 of the Order is illogical, contradicts the effective laws and circumscribes constitutional rights of citizens. I believe that the mere wish of spouses or people who aren't married to have a child of this or that sex is the sufficient reason, no matter if there are any medical indications. It will be appropriate to mention the recent accident that has happened in India, when a 35-years old woman died of grief when she learned that she had born another girl. A lot of married couples in our country as well may feel the same.

The procedure of choosing sex shall be as follows: when PGD procedure is finished healthy embryos are split in accordance with their sex. A customer may determine the priority of implanting these or that embryo by himself, having chosen any character as the criterion (including sex). Other embryos are frozen and stored, waiting for further directions of the customer. Thus, legally speaking this is not the procedure of choosing sex, but a genic analysis with the purpose of revealing potential genic pathologies with further selection of healthy embryos on the ground of sex, at that embryos that are left after implantation are frozen but not destroyed.

Surrogate maternity not only helps to effectively solve the social task of primary importance - reproduction of population, but also helps in reproduction of the elite. It's not a secret that only well-to-do and successful people can resort to services of surrogate mothers. Their children carried by surrogate mothers will inevitably become the part of Russian Establishment due to higher cultural, educational and material level of their biological parents, capable of equipping their children with better education that will help them to take their stand in the society. So surrogate mothers may truly be called "precious bowls".

Lawmakers should not circumscribe, but encourage at the national level all people wishing to have children through surrogate and reproductive programs. Now we have the abnormal situation when the most urgent questions meet with no response on the part of the lawmakers. Here are only few of them:

Does an embryo have the right to life and from which moment? Does a surrogate mother have the right not to bring the child carried by her to parents? What shall happen with embryos in case of death of one of the spouses? Can frozen gametes be used in case of their owner's death for further realization of surrogate or reproductive maternity programs? Can frozen embryos be used in case of divorce or death of one of the spouses? What is to be done in case of divorce or death of spouses whose baby is being carried by a surrogate mother? Can one resort to surrogate mothers' services on social indications? How to realize reproductive programs for single parents? What shall be done with the unused embryos and gametes and is it moral to use them in fundamental resources? Can embryos be created for researches?

In the legal vacuum that subsists in Russia in the sphere involved no one is willing to assume liability for nontraditional reproductive programs realization. But the development of science is always ahead the development of society, as scientists go before lawyers and politicians. Science creates new possibilities that didn't exist before. One shouldn't be afraid of these possibilities.

Since July 25, 1978, when Louisa Brown - the first test-tube baby - was born, more than three million babies conceived in vitro were born all over the world. Only 30 000 of them were born in Russia. This is not a surprise. In small Israel with the population five million people there are more than 100 reproduction clinics, while in forty-five million Russia - only 40 of them, at that their technical equipment often leaves much to be desired.

We need a government program of helping childless people who need assisted reproductive technologies. Today the situation has taken the turn for the better. In June 2007 the 1st International Congress for the Problems of Reproduction was a success in Moscow - the leading politicians and public figures of Russia welcomed its opening. Duma's Health Protection Committee is working on the target program "Reproduction Health of the Population". For the first time in Russia it is planned to assign up to 15 billion rubles a year for in vitro fertilization, t. i. the state is planning to bear expenses connected with IVF. Such practice already exists in some foreign countries. Thus, in Germany insurance companies cover all expenses on IVF. In Italy infertility treatment is financed solely by the state, and in Finland the state covers only 50% of expenses. In Austria the state pays for 6 attempts, in Hungary - for 3 attempts, in Denmark - also for 3 attempts, but a woman shall be under 38. In all cases the main point is the same - the state fully or partially finances reproductive programs for its citizens, whereas in Russia the compulsory health insurance doesn't cover expenses for infertility treatment, whereas abortions are made due to the medical insurance.

Nevertheless, social reproductive programs are realized in Russia as well. Thus, 200 free-of-charge programs are realized every year in the Scientific Centre of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Perinatology of the Russian Academy of Medical Sciences in Moscow, where more than 11 thousand babies have been already born through IVF. But this is just a drop in the bucket. Physicians-enthusiasts need state backing. Expenses for reproductive programs financing shall be included into the budget for the year 2007 as a separate entry.

In Russia the cost of three IVF attempts - and this is the average number of attempts necessary for beginning of pregnancy - is about 250 000 rubles, and with the help of this very sum the state is going to induce women who already have children to further reproduction. I think that it would be more logical - and practical - to spend this money on financing IVF programs for lower-income childless couples. The fact that twins and trines are born in half of the cases when assisted reproductive technologies are applied is also very important.

But in our country the birth of even one child brings about substantial decrease of living standards in the majority of families. Only the expenses on pregnancy and labour management make up about 100-150 thousand rubles. It would be logical - and moral - apart from paying out the "maternity capital", to exempt large families (with three or more children) helping to get over the demographical crisis from taxes.

The right to continue family line is among the most important and inalienable natural rights of a man. Everything that facilitates the birth of a new man is acceptable and moral. Everything that hinders it is immoral and inadmissible. Basing upon this fundamental principle, our lawyers have prepared the draft "On Assisted Reproductive Technologies and Guarantees of Citizens' Reproductive Rights". As long as such an omnibus act is not passed, we are restricted by amending the existing legislative instruments. So, article 35 of "Fundamentals of Legislation of the Russian Federation on Health Protection of Citizens" shall be read as follows: "Each adult citizen of the Russian Federation, irrespective of sex, family status and state of health, has the right to use assisted reproductive technologies (ART). ART means the methods of treating infertility when several or all stages of conception and early development of an embryo are extracorporeal. ART include: in vitro fertilization and embryos implantation into uterine cavity, sperm injection into an oocyte's cytoplasm, sperm, oocytes and embryos donorship, surrogate maternity, pre-implantation diagnostics including the choice of sex, and artificial insemination. ART is possible only by written informed consent. People who have given consent for the use of the above-mentioned methods with the purpose of having a child shall be entered into the Certificate of Birth as the parents of the child born as a result of applying these methods".

Already after a year only liberalization of the existing reproduction laws will result in one million additional births with no expense to the state, whereas government financing of reproductive programs can change demographic situation in Russia in a big way.