(Section 32 of the opinion of the Vice-President, Justice Gibran).
This was referred to by the Supreme Court in its judgment in the Arad-Pinkas High Court case (paragraph 15 of President Hayut's opinion).
See also:
High Court of Justice 4077/12 Anonymous v. Ministry of Health (February 5, 2013), paragraph 26 of the opinion of Justice Rubinstein; (hereinafter – the High Court of Justice);
High Court of Justice 2245/06 Dobrin v. Israel Prison Service (June 13, 2004), paragraph 12 of the opinion of Justice Procaccia;
Labor Appeal (National) 141/07 Anonymous - Clalit Health Services (4.11.2008) and the references there (hereinafter – the Clalit Health Services case).
High Court of Justice 7052/03 Adalah Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights v. Minister of the Interior, IsrSC 61(2) 202;
National Insurance Institute (Tel Aviv) 20833-07-10 Roy Reuveni Horowitz - National Insurance Institute (June 23, 2014) (hereinafter – the Reuveni case).
- As to the connection between the right to parenthood and the right to procreate by technological means, the High Court of Justice ruled in the case of A Certain High Court of Justice that:
"Indeed, in any situation in which the claimant is required to have the right to parenthood, to authorize the use of new technology in order to enter the world of parenthood, the argument can be heard that the claimant does not 'hold a right to a certain treatment,' does not hold a right to insemination treatments, surrogacy, etc. However, at the heart of the right to parenthood is the practical ability to have children. Just as the state does not require a "parenting license", it is not permitted to infringe on a person's right to parenthood without weighty practical reasons (see CA 413/80 Anonymous v. Anonymous, IsrSC 35(3) 57, 81-82 (1981)). In those situations in which a person requires certain medical treatment in order to be included in the parental group, the failure to provide the treatment violates his right. Of course, the right to parenthood is also relative, but it cannot be disputed, because in those cases there is a real harm to the protected interest."