ABC v Thomson Medical Pte Ltd and others, Singapore Civil Court of Appeal [2017] SGCA 20 - read judgment It is a trite reflection that law should change with the times but every so often we see the hair-pin bends in law's pursuit of modern technology. This case from Singapore about reproductive rights and negligence…
In this case, a mistake was made in the process of an in vitro-fertilisation procedure involving a Singaporean Chinese woman and her German Caucasian husband.
Mistakenly, the wife’s egg was inseminated with sperm from an unknown Indian donor.
Baby P was born healthy, but with a different skin tone.
The claimant’s affidavit states that the pain and suffering that she suffered as a result, physically, mentally and emotionally, was “beyond words” and was “agonizing”
A serving High Court judge has told the BBC that he is approving commercial surrogacy agreements made by British couples abroad. Laws in the UK are designed to try to prevent such arrangements, but Mr Justice Hedley said his paramount concern was the welfare of the child. The most recent case the judge approved was last month, involving a baby born to a surrogate in the Ukraine. The judge said he was "extremely anxious" about the current situation. In Britain, the judge said, the only payment allowed to a surrogate mother was one of "reasonable expenses". However, he has agreed to give retrospective approval for commercial surrogacy on at least four occasions.
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...