Opinion by letter No  21 - The reimbursement of additional IVF cycles in the context of PGT‑M

Opinion by letter No 21 of 12 March 2026 on the reimbursement of additional IVF cycles in the context of PGT‑M

This opinion by letter addresses the question of whether it is appropriate to reimburse additional in vitro fertilisation (IVF) cycles when couples who are carriers of a hereditary genetic disorder use pre‑implantation genetic testing (PGT‑M) in order to avoid transmitting this condition to their future child. In Belgium, reimbursement is currently limited to six IVF cycles, regardless of the reason for the treatment. The Committee examines whether this rule leads, in the context of PGT‑M, to an equitable situation, given that certain embryos cannot be transferred because of an identified genetic risk. The opinion analyses this issue in the light of available scientific data and ethical considerations, in particular with regard to equality between patients, equity of outcomes, social justice and the responsible use of healthcare resources. It also highlights the possible alternatives that these couples may be confronted with. The Committee does not take a decision on reimbursement, but sets out the ethical issues that are relevant for political decision‑making bodies.

Opinion by letter No 18 on the social rights of the various stakeholders involved in surrogy

In its opinion by letter No. 18 of October 1, 2024, concerning the impact of the legal framework for surrogacy on the social rights of the various stakeholders, the Advisory Committee on Bioethics of Belgium makes the following recommendations:

• The extension of parental leave to intended parents and to parents in other family arrangements, such as intentional co-parenting. 
• To maintain the right to maternity leave for the surrogate mother as it currently exists.

Opinion No 86 on the legal framework for gestational surrogacy

Is a legislative framework necessary for surrogacy?

Opinion No 86 of 17 April 2023 concerning the legal framework for surrogacy (update of Opinion No. 30 of 5 July 2004). 

Opinion No 62 - Ethical implications of the 'statute' of the pregnant partner of a male participant in a clinical trial

Opinion No 62 of 12 October 2015 on the ethical implications of the 'statute' of the pregnant partner of a male participant in a clinical trial.

Opinion No 30 - Gestational surrogacy

Opinion No 30 of 5 July 2004 on gestational surrogacy

Opinion No 57 - Social Freezing

Opinion No 57 of 16 December 2013 on the ethical aspects of tehe freezing of eggs in anticipation of age-related infertility.

Opinion No 53 -  Refusal of medical care by a pregnant woman impacting on the foetus

Opinion No 53 of 14 May 2012 on the refusal of medical care by a pregnant woman impacting on the foetus  

Opinion No 31 -  Experiments on pregnant and breastfeeding women

Opinion No 31 of 5 July 2004 regarding experiments on pregnant and breastfeeding women.

Opinion No 4 - Anonymous childbirth

Opinion No 4 of 12 January 1998 on the problem of concealed childbirth by mothers in distress and the advisability of legalising anonymous childbirth.