1910249 WC: 3000
Module: (23361) Legal Issues in Healthcare
Student Number: 1910249
Word count: 3000
Questions: 2 and 4
, 1910249 WC: 3000
Q2.
Carrie and John (“the couple”) have some reproductive rights. Article 8 of the European
Convention of Human Rights protects their right to respect for private and family life and
Article 12 protects their right to found a family. However, Article 12 does not create a right
to procreate nor implies that a person must always be given the actual possibility to
procreate1. It was accepted in Evans v UK2 that the right to reproductive autonomy applies
equally to each gamete donor, yet the state’s obligation to protect this broad right to
autonomy does not generate a right to access assisted reproductive technology (ART). Whilst
any attempt to regulate procreation through natural reproduction is condemned as out of
hand3, the use of ART to regulate procreation has its limitations, considering NHS’ tight
resource constraints4. In response to the rapid advancement of science, The Warnock
Committee Report5 provided the foundation for The Human Fertilisation and Embryology
Act 1990 (HFEA 1990), as amended by HFEA 2008. The Act regulates what clinical and
scientific research and treatments can be performed as a means of balancing the competing
individual and public interests6, and sets up The Human Fertilisation and Embryology
Authority (HFEA) which regulates fertility treatment and licenses clinics.
Paramountcy of the child’s welfare
1
X v UK (1968) 28 CD 94
2
[2007] ECHR 264
3
A Alghrani and J Harris, ‘Reproductive Liberty: Should the foundation of families be regulated?
(2006) 18 CFLQ 191
4
R v. Sheffield Health Authority, ex parte Seale [1994] 25 BMLR 1.
5
Cmnd 9314, (1984)
6
A. Alghrani,’Regulating Assisted Reproductive Technologies’ (2018) CUP
Module: (23361) Legal Issues in Healthcare
Student Number: 1910249
Word count: 3000
Questions: 2 and 4
, 1910249 WC: 3000
Q2.
Carrie and John (“the couple”) have some reproductive rights. Article 8 of the European
Convention of Human Rights protects their right to respect for private and family life and
Article 12 protects their right to found a family. However, Article 12 does not create a right
to procreate nor implies that a person must always be given the actual possibility to
procreate1. It was accepted in Evans v UK2 that the right to reproductive autonomy applies
equally to each gamete donor, yet the state’s obligation to protect this broad right to
autonomy does not generate a right to access assisted reproductive technology (ART). Whilst
any attempt to regulate procreation through natural reproduction is condemned as out of
hand3, the use of ART to regulate procreation has its limitations, considering NHS’ tight
resource constraints4. In response to the rapid advancement of science, The Warnock
Committee Report5 provided the foundation for The Human Fertilisation and Embryology
Act 1990 (HFEA 1990), as amended by HFEA 2008. The Act regulates what clinical and
scientific research and treatments can be performed as a means of balancing the competing
individual and public interests6, and sets up The Human Fertilisation and Embryology
Authority (HFEA) which regulates fertility treatment and licenses clinics.
Paramountcy of the child’s welfare
1
X v UK (1968) 28 CD 94
2
[2007] ECHR 264
3
A Alghrani and J Harris, ‘Reproductive Liberty: Should the foundation of families be regulated?
(2006) 18 CFLQ 191
4
R v. Sheffield Health Authority, ex parte Seale [1994] 25 BMLR 1.
5
Cmnd 9314, (1984)
6
A. Alghrani,’Regulating Assisted Reproductive Technologies’ (2018) CUP
