More questions than answers? R v human fertilisation and embryology authority ex parte blood: The times 7th February 1997

Medical Law International

Volumn 3, Issue 1, 1997, Pages 75-81

  Treece, S J ^a   Savas, D ^a  

^a SHEFFIELD HALLAM UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTIFICIAL INSEMINATION; EMBRYOLOGY; FERTILIZATION; HUMAN; LAW; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; REVIEW; SPERM;

EID: 0031459677     PISSN: 09685332     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/096853329700300104     Document Type: Review

References (3)

1. Mrs Blood attempted to argue that Paragraph 5(3) provided an exclusion "This paragraph does not apply to the use of a persons gametes for the purpose of that person, or that person and another together, receiving treatment services".
2. See Paragraph 8(1) Schedule 3 to the 1990 Act which says, "A persons gametes are not to be kept in storage unless there is an effective consent by that person to their storage and they are stored in accordance with the consent"; also Paragraph 2(2)(b) which states that consent to storage must "... state what is to be done with the gametes ... if the person who gave their consent dies or is unable because of incapacity to vary the terms of the consent or to revoke it."
3. Art 59 TEU "... restrictions on freedom to provide services within the Community shall be progressively abolished during the transitional period in respect of nationals of Member States who are established in a State of the Community other than that of the person for whom the services are intended."