Procreative liberty, or collective responsibility? Comment on the House of Commons report Human Reproductive Technologies and the Law, and on Dahl's response

Reproductive BioMedicine Online

Volumn 11, Issue 2, 2005, Pages 155-157

  Shenfield, Françoise ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY COLLEGE HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

HFE Act 1990; Responsibility; Social sex selection; Welfare of the child

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; HUMAN RIGHTS; INFERTILITY THERAPY; INFORMATION PROCESSING; LAW; ORGANIZATION; RESPONSIBILITY; SEXUAL SELECTION; UNITED KINGDOM;

EID: 23144431567     PISSN: 14726483     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/s1472-6483(10)60951-0     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Bhargava P 2005 In: Golombok S, Schulman J, Dahl E et al. Ethics of Choosing the Sex of Our Offspring. Open Discussion at the First International Conference on Ethics, Law and Moral Philosophy of Reproductive Biomedicine, the Royal Society, London 2004. Reproductive BioMedicine Online 10 (suppl. 1), 125-128.
2. Dahl E 2004 The presumption in favour of liberty: a comment on the HFEA's public consultation on sex selection. Reproductive BioMedicine Online 8, 266-267.
3. Dahl E 2005 No country is an island: comment on the House of Commons Report Human Reproductive Technologies and the Law. Reproductive BioMedicine Online 11, 10-11.
4. Dworkin 1991 Taking Rights Seriously. Duckworth, London.
5. ESHRE Task Force 3 on Ethics and Law, Gamete and embryo donation 1999 Human Reproduction 17, 5.
6. European Convention of Human Rights, 1950 article 14.
7. Faunce TA 2005 Will international human rights subsume medical ethics? Intersections in the UNESCO Universal Bioethics Declaration. Journal of Medical Ethics 31, 173-178.
8. HFE Act 1990, HMSO, London.
9. HFEA 2004 Sex selection: options for regulation; choice and responsibility in human reproduction, www.hfea.gov.uk [accessed 15 June 2005].
10. House of Commons 2005 Human Reproductive Technologies and the Law. Fifth report of session 2004-05. The Stationery Office, London, UK, 1; also available at www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmsctech.htm#reports [accessed 15 June 2005].
11. Human Rights Act 1999 HMSO, London.
12. McLean S 2005 In: Golombok S, Schulman J, Dahl E et al. Ethics of Choosing the Sex of Our Offspring. Open Discussion at the First International Conference on Ethics, Law and Moral Philosophy of Reproductive Biomedicine, the Royal Society, London 2004. Reproductive BioMedicine Online 10 (suppl. 1), 125-128.
13. Pennings G 1999 Measuring the welfare of the child: in search of the appropriate principle. Human Reproduction 14, 1146-1150.
14. Sen A 1990 More than 100 million women are missing. New York Review of books, New York.
15. Sen A 2003 Missing women - revisited. British Medical Journal 327, 1297-1298.
16. Shenfield F 1994 Sex selection, why not. Human Reproduction 9, 142.
17. Strathern M 1993 BMA debate on sex selection, April 1993. Invited oral communication, distributed to participants as a one sheet summary. Available on application to author of this paper.
18. Wu Z, Viisainen K, Wang Y, Hemminki E 2003 Perinatal mortality in rural China: retrospective cohort study. British Medical Journal 327, 1319-1322.