Correspondence Between Legislation and Public Opinion in Bulgaria about Accessto Assisted Reproductive Technologies (ART)

1. Sorensen C. ART in European Union. Euro Observer 2006; 8: 1-4.Search in Google Scholar

2. Final Report ESHRE 2008 - Comparative analysis of medically assisted reproduction in the EU: regulation and technologies/SANCO/2008/C6/051. Accessed December 2008 at: http://ec.europa.eu/health/blood_tissues_organs/docs/study_eshre_en.pdf.Search in Google Scholar

3. Arons J. Future choices, assisted reproductive technologies and the law. Accessed December 2007 at: http:/www.americanprogress.org.Search in Google Scholar

4. CECOS - Contribution de la Federation Francaise des Centres d’etude et de conservation des oeufs et du sperme humain - Fevrier 2009. Accessed February 2009 at : http:/www. etatsgenerauxdelabioethique.fr.Search in Google Scholar

5. Frederiksen ME, Christensen U, Tjornhoj-Thomsen T, Schmidt L. Solo mother by donor-the plan B of motherhood: a perspective on person-centered reproductive medicine. Int J Person Centered Med 2011; 1: 800-807.Search in Google Scholar

6. Surveillance 2010: preface. International Federation of Fertility Societies. Accessed September 14, 2010 at: External link http:/www.iffs-reproduction.org/IFFS_Surveillance_2010.Search in Google Scholar

7. Delgado JJI. Inheritance rights for the child born from post - mortem fertilization. Rev Derecho Genoma Hum 2008; 29: 13-31.Search in Google Scholar

8. Lewis, Browne C. Graveside birthday parties: the legal consequences of forming families posthumously. Case Western Reserve Law Rev 2010; 60; 1159-1182.Search in Google Scholar

9. Fundacion BBVA attitudes towards assisted reproduction and preimplantation genetic. Diagnosis. Science Daily . Accessed December 17, 2008 at: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081217101440.htm.Search in Google Scholar

10. Stoop D, Nekkebroeck J, Devroey P. A survey on the intentions and attitudes towards oocyte cryopreservation for non-medical reasons among women of reproductive age. Hum Reprod 2011; 26: 655-661.10.1093/humrep/deq36721212052Search in Google Scholar

11. Mertes H, Pennings G. Elective oocyte cryopreservation: who should pay? Hum Reprod 2012; 27: 9-13.Search in Google Scholar

12. Billari FC, Goisis A, Liefbroer AC, Settersten RA, Aassve A, Hagestad G, Speder Z. Social age deadlines for the childbearing of women and men. Hum Reprod 2011; 26: 616 - 622.10.1093/humrep/deq360303779221159684Search in Google Scholar

13. Pennings G, De Wert G, Shenfield F, Cohen J. Tarlatzis B, Devroey P. ESHRE Task force on ethics and law 14: equity of access to assisted reproductive technology. Hum Reprod 2008; 23: 772-774.10.1093/humrep/den18418611918Search in Google Scholar

14. Kovacs GT, Morgan G, Wood EC, Forbes C, Howlett D. Community attitudes to assisted reproductive technology: a 20- year trend, MJA 2003; 179: 536-538.Search in Google Scholar

15. Zachia S, Knautch D, Goldim JR, Chachamovich JR, Chachamovich E, Paz AH, Felberbaum R, Crosignani PG, Tarlatzis BC, Passos EP. Assisted reproduction: what factors interfere in the professional’s decisions?: are single women an issue? BMC Women’s Health 2011: 11-21. Available at: http:/ www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6874/11/21.10.1186/1472-6874-11-21312523921627812Search in Google Scholar

16. Fonnest IF, Sondergaard F, Fonnest G, Vedsted-Jacobsen A. Attitudes among health care professionals on the ethics of assisted reproductive technologies and legal abortion. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2000; 79: 49-53.10.1080/j.1600-0412.2000.079001049.xSearch in Google Scholar

17. The Ethics Committee of American Society for Reproductive Medicine Access to fertility treatment by gays, lesbians, and unmarried persons. Fertil Steril 2009; 92: 1190-1193.10.1016/j.fertnstert.2009.07.97719732884Search in Google Scholar

18. Rogers D. Unattainable joy: unequal access to assisted reproductive technologies. Accessed June, 2010 at: http://www.writing.ucsb.edu/50awards/2011_Awards/Rogers.Search in Google Scholar

19. Weissenberg R, Landau R, Madgar I. Older single mothers assisted by sperm donation and their children. Hum Reprod 2007; 22: 2784-2791.10.1093/humrep/dem25017675354Search in Google Scholar

20. Rank N. Barriers for access to assisted reproductive technologies by lesbian women: the search for parity within the healthcare system. Hous J Health Law Policy 2010; 10: 115-146.Search in Google Scholar

21. Ueda N, Kushi N, Nakatsuka M, Ogawa T, Nakanishi Y, Shishido K, Awaya T. Study of views on posthumous reproduction, focusing on its relation with views on family and religion in modern Japan. Acta Med Okayama, 2008.Search in Google Scholar

22. Nakhuda GS, Wang JG, Sauer MV. Posthumous assisted reproduction: a survey of attitudes of couples seeking fertility treatment and the degree of agreement between intimate partners. Fertil Steril 2011; 96: 1463-1466.10.1016/j.fertnstert.2011.09.01821982730Search in Google Scholar

23. Bahadur G. Opinion death and conception. Hum Reprod 2002; 17: 2769-2775.10.1093/humrep/17.10.276912351560Search in Google Scholar

24. Pennings G, De Wert G, Shenfield F, Cohen J, Devroey P, Tarlatzis B. . ESHRE task force on ethics and law 11: posthumous assisted reproduction. Hum Reprod 2006; 21: 3050-3053.10.1093/humrep/del28716923749Search in Google Scholar

25. Kruger M. The prohibition of post-mortem-fertilization, legal situation in Germany and European Convention on human rights. Revue Int Droit Penal 2011; 82: 41-64.10.3917/ridp.821.0041Search in Google Scholar

26. Chatzinikolaou N. The ethics of assisted reproduction. J Reprod Immunol 2010; 85: 3-8.10.1016/j.jri.2010.02.00120412986Search in Google Scholar

27. Le Coz P. Respecter l’’embryon humain? In: Lois de bioethique: reexamen, enjeux et debats. Paris: La documentation Francaise, 2009; 49-61.Search in Google Scholar

28. Landau R. Posthumous sperm retrieval for the purpose of later insemination or IVF in Israel: an ethical and psychosocial critique. Hum Reprod 2004; 19: 1952- 1956.10.1093/humrep/deh36015243009Search in Google Scholar