The cross border phenomenon is now well entrenched. The data show that many patients travel to evade restrictive legislation in their own country, and that support from their home health providers is variable. There may be a need for professional societies to establish standards for cross border reproductive care.

This Task Force document discusses ethical issues arising with requests for medically assisted reproduction from people in what may be called 'non-standard' situations and relationships. The document stresses that categorically denying access to any of these groups cannot be reconciled with a human rights perspective. If there are concerns about the implications of assisted reproduction on the wellbeing of any of the persons involved, including the future child, a surrogate mother or the applicants themselves, these concerns have to be considered in the light of the available scientific evidence. When doing so it is important to avoid the use of double standards. More research is needed into the psychosocial implications of raising children in non-standard situations, especially with regard to single women, male homosexual couples and transsexual people.

This paper analyses the ethical aspects of cross-border reproductive care. Ethical questions are raised by some of the main reasons of cross-border travelling, i.e. law evasion and unequal access to treatment. The phenomenon also generates possible conflicts linked to the responsibility of the professionals. Three points are discussed: the moral obligation of the physician to refer the patient, his/her duty to provide information and counselling and the acceptability of fee-splitting. The recommendations focus on measures to reduce or limit the number of patients that have to travel abroad and on steps to guarantee the safety and quality of the treatment wherever it is provided.

This 10th statement of the Task Force on Ethics and Law considers ethical questions specific to varied surrogacy arrangements. Surrogacy is especially complex as the interests of the intended parents, the surrogate, and the future child may differ. It is concluded that surrogacy is an acceptable method of assisted reproductive technology of the last resort for specific medical indications, for which only reimbursement of reasonable expenses is allowed.

If genome sequencing is performed in health care, in theory the opportunity arises to take a further look at the data: opportunistic genomic screening (OGS). The European Society of Human Genetics (ESHG) in 2013 recommended that genome analysis should be restricted to the original health problem at least for the time being. Other organizations have argued that ‘actionable’ genetic variants should or could be reported (including American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics, French Society of Predictive and Personalized Medicine, Genomics England). They argue that the opportunity should be used to routinely and systematically look for secondary findings—so-called opportunistic screening. From a normative perspective, the distinguishing characteristic of screening is not so much its context (whether public health or health care), but the lack of an indication for having this specific test or investigation in those to whom screening is offered. Screening entails a more precarious benefits-to-risks balance. The ESHG continues to recommend a cautious approach to opportunistic screening. Proportionality and autonomy must be guaranteed, and in collectively funded health-care systems the potential benefits must be balanced against health care expenditures. With regard to genome sequencing in pediatrics, ESHG argues that it is premature to look for later-onset conditions in children. Counseling should be offered and informed consent is and should be a central ethical norm. Depending on developing evidence on penetrance, actionability, and available resources, OGS pilots may be justified to generate data for a future, informed, comparative analysis of OGS and its main alternatives, such as cascade testing.