A widow is battling to use sperm taken from the body of her dead husband, in a British legal first. The woman, who cannot be named, wants to use sperm taken from her husband after he died unexpectedly during a routine hospital operation last year. The mother-of-one applied for an emergency court order allowing his sperm to be taken shortly after he died and it is now being stored in a clinic. The law allows sperm only to be used with the written consent of the donor.
This article examines the new Model Act on Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART), which was approved by the American Bar Association in February, 2008.
This proposed Model Act is the work of the American Bar Association Section of Family Law's Committee on Reproductive and Genetic Technology. It has been approved by the Section Council. The sections dealing with parentage are intended, as much as possible, to be consistent with and to track the corresponding provisions of the Uniform Parentage Act of 2000, as amended in 2002.
The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 was granted Royal Assent in the UK on 18 November 2008. This article will look at two specific areas addressed in the new Act and ask what the human rights issues were under the old law and whether the changes adequately address these issues. By looking at case law under the European Convention on Human Rights, the article will attempt to evaluate whether either the old law or the new law can be considered compatible with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
A white couple undergoing IVF treatment have had black twins after a blunder at a fertility clinic. It has sparked an unprecedented legal debate over how it could happen and who the 'lawful' parents are. BBC News Online asked Penney Lewis, a lecturer in law at King's College London, about issues surrounding the case.
A couple have spoken of their utter devastation after a fertility clinic mix-up led to their last viable embryo being implanted into another woman. Debra and Paul, from Bridgend, have received damages of about £25,000 after the error in December 2007.
The single greatest change to affect the UK fertility sector in nearly two decades will take place tomorrow, Thursday 1 October, as the new Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 (as amended) comes into force. Changes which will come into effect with the new legislation include: * increasing the length of time people can store their embryos * a ‘cooling off’ period if one partner withdraws consent for embryo storage * extending information access rights for donor conceived people and donors * opening the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority’s (HFEA) Register for research * introducing supportive parenting into the welfare of the child provisions * banning sex selection for non medical reasons * clarifying the scope of embryo research
A hospital mix-up last January forced would-be mom Carolyn Savage and her husband Sean to make a heartrending decision. Ten days after the Savages went to a fertility clinic to have embryos transferred in hopes of conceiving, they got a devastating phone call. Savage had successfully gotten pregnant, but the baby wasn't hers—the embryo belonged to Detroit-based couple Paul and Shannon Morell. The Savages were stricken. "It was such a nightmare and, in a way, I felt violated," Carolyn Savage told CNN last week. Yet what had the potential to be a scarring and devastating turn of events ended up forging an incredible, if unlikely, bond between two families. Savage decided not to abort the fetus, and to give the biological parents the baby.
Mistakes and near misses in fertility treatment are recorded by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority but until now details of the most serious cases have been kept secret. Eight of these mistakes were given grade A status, meaning they were the most serious incidents could involve events such as embryo mix ups, the death of a patient or an incident which affects a number of patients, for example, when a storage unit malfunctions and all embryos are defrosted and lost. In 2007/8 two of the eight grade A incidents involved mix-ups. A spokesman refused to give details but said they could be cases where the wrong sperm was used to fertilise and embryo or the wrong embryo was defrosted for use, but neither involved the implantation of wrong embryos. Last year there were 182 incidents out fo 52,000 cycles of treatment provided in Britain, the HFEA said.
Despite appearances in public debate, there is a surprising amount of consensus across the political spectrum on two basic components of reproductive rights: the O.S.I. (the offspring selection interest) and the B.I.I. (the bodily integrity interest). In this article, Colb suggests that it is important to keep these two often-overlapping interests distinct in thinking about calls for reproductive rights. To illustrate the pitfalls of conflating the O.S.I. and the B.I.I., Colb takes up frozen embryo disputes between sperm and egg donors and intra-couple conflicts about abortion. She concludes that although opponents on the abortion issue are unlikely to reach a consensus, the scope of their disagreements can be narrowed and better defined by treating the O.S.I. and the B.I.I. as the independent and severable interests that they truly are.
A Parental Order transfers parenthood from the surrogate (and her husband or partner if she has one) to the couple who commission the surrogacy arrangement. Parental Orders are currently available to married couples only. The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 enables same sex couples and unmarried couples as well as married couples to apply for a Parental Order. Regulations are necessary to set out the processes for the court to grant Parental Orders. This consultation is on the Draft Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Parental Orders) Regulations. They replace the Parental Orders (Human Fertilisation and Embryology) Regulations 1994 and the Parental Orders (Human Fertilisation and Embryology) (Scotland) Regulations 1994. They will bring the processes for granting Parental Orders more closely into line with updated adoption legislation.
A parental order is made by the family courts and reassigns parenthood after surrogacy, extinguishing the responsibility of the surrogate parents and transferring it to the commissioning couple. The process takes place post-birth: the application must be made within the first six months of the child's life (though the surrogate's consent is ineffective until after the first six weeks) and typically takes many months to be processed by the courts. At present, only married couples can apply, but as from 6 April 2010, unmarried and same sex couples will also be eligible. The Department of Health (DH) is currently consulting on new draft regulations which prescribe the detail of this court process, and which will replace existing regulations that have been in place since 1994. The consultation closes on 23 November.
The new parenthood provisions set out in Part 2 of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 have been attacked as dangerous and radical, offering a 'lego-kit model of family life' and a 'magical mystery tour' in how legal fatherhood is to be determined. In this paper, we explain what is innovative about these new provisions but also explore what they owe to deep-rooted traditional assumptions about the family. Relying both on published documentation relating to this reform process and a small number of key actor interviews, we trace the imprint of what Fineman has described as the 'sexual family' model on the provisions. We conclude that the way that parenthood is framed within the legislation relies on a number of important normative assumptions which received very little scrutiny in this process. We also highlight a number of tensions within this framing which, we suggest, may create future problems for judicial determination.
The UK Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) is investigating websites that match up sperm donors with women who want to conceive, to see whether they may be breaking the law. The move by the HFEA follows the conviction at Southwark Crown Court in London of Ricky Gage and Nigel Woodforth, who made £250 000 (€295 000; $400 000) from their company Fertility 1st, which couriered sperm from donors to women who were trying to conceive. The pair face a possible jail term when they are sentenced in October. They fell foul of a law that makes the procurement of gametes, including human sperm, illegal without a licence from the HFEA.
OTTAWA — A Supreme Court ruling placing much of Canada's burgeoning fertility industry under provincial control leaves an enormous gap in the regulation of artificial procreation and exposes women who use the technologies and the children born from them to potential harm, critics say. A sharply divided court struck down key federal powers to regulate assisted human reproduction Wednesday, concluding that several parts of a new law fall under provincial jurisdiction over health care. The ruling effectively stops a federal move toward national standards and guts Assisted Human Reproduction Canada — an embattled federal agency that was struck four years ago to monitor how assisted procreation is carried out at more than two dozen fertility clinics across the country.
AT LEAST 15 children born through surrogacy to Irish couples abroad are caught in a legal limbo which has left them either stateless or unable to get an Irish passport. This is despite the recommendations of the Commission on Assisted Human Reproduction – established more than a decade ago – which urged the Government to regulate surrogacy. Meanwhile, many parents say delays in resolving their children’s legal status is a source of ongoing stress and is likely to involve expensive legal action. One Dublin couple in their 30s, who have been stranded abroad in India for several weeks, say they are “tearing their hair out” waiting to have their child’s status regularised. “We are tired and angry with the Irish authorities,” said one of the parents, who declined to be named.
MINISTER FOR Justice Alan Shatter is to publish official guidelines next month to assist parents who plan to have children via surrogate mothers abroad in a move aimed at preventing babies ending up in “legal limbo”. However, he was unable to say when long-promised legislation for the wider area of assisted human reproduction would be published. Mr Shatter told The Irish Times that pressure on the Government in drawing up legal changes linked to the EU-IMF bailout meant there was no guarantee of when legislation would be ready. He said a “consultative process” has begun between officials in the various Government departments and hoped significant progress would be made next year. His comments come at a time of growing concern for the welfare of 15 children born by surrogacy abroad who are now either stateless or unable to get passports.
The treatment of inherited mitochondrial abnormalities in human embryos using donor mitochondria is an advancing area of research. The techniques involved could have profound implications for future generations. This project will explore the ethical issues relevant to affected families, potential donors, researchers, medical professionals and others trying to understand and respond to the therapeutic possibility of mitochondrial transfer.
This document is intended to provide guidance as to the principles that will be applied by the Irish authorities when considering (i) whether a child is an Irish citizen, and (ii) who the child's legal parents and guardians are, for the purposes of dealing with applications for travel documents on behalf of children born outside the State as a result of surrogacy arrangements.
On 1 April 2005, with the implementation of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (Disclosure of Donor Information) Regulations 2004, United Kingdom law was changed to allow children born through gamete donation to access details identifying the donor. Drawing on trends in adoption law, the decision to abolish donor anonymity was strongly influenced by a discourse that asserted the ‘child's right to personal identity’. Through examination of the donor anonymity debate in the public realm, while adopting a social constructionist approach, this article discusses how donor anonymity has been defined as a social problem that requires a regulative response. It focuses on the child's ‘right to personal identity’ claims, and discusses the genetic essentialism behind these claims. By basing its assumptions on an adoption analogy, United Kingdom law ascribes a social meaning to the genetic relatedness between gamete donors and the offspring
This paper explores cases involving disputes between lesbian parents and known donors with whom informal insemination arrangements were made. It observes that the current legal framework for recognising parents following assisted reproduction is incapable of dealing adequately with known donors, notwithstanding a host of recent developments in the law relating to lesbian parenting. As a result, the case-law exhibits judicial uncertainty and inconsistency about the extent of the recognition to which known donors should be entitled. In spite of the difficulties posed by using known donors, the paper argues that there is a strong case for finding an appropriate way of accommodating them within the legal framework for recognising parents. It explores some of the possible legal responses and highlights their potential advantages and disadvantages from theoretical and practical perspectives.
These proceedings involve separate but linked applications by two men for leave to apply for orders under s.8 of the Children Act 1989. In each case, the application concerns a child conceived using sperm provided by the man and born to a woman in a civil partnership. As a result of the reforms introduced in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008, legal parenthood of the children is vested in the mothers and their respective civil partners to the exclusion of the biological fathers who therefore have no right to apply for orders in respect of the children without the leave of the court. I am told that these two cases are the first to come before the court involving an application for leave to apply for s.8 orders from men who, having provided sperm for couples in a civil partnership, are by virtue of the 2008 Act not the legal fathers of the children thereby conceived. It is argued by counsel appearing before me that the outcome of this case has significant public policy...