Balancing competing interests over frozen embryos: The judgment of Solomon?

Medical Law Review

Volumn 14, Issue 3, 2006, Pages 425-433

  Annett, Tim ^a  

^a Poole Alcock LLP Solicitors   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; CRYOPRESERVATION; DONOR; EMBRYO; EMBRYO TRANSFER; EUROPEAN UNION; FEMALE; FEMALE INFERTILITY; FERTILIZATION IN VITRO; HUMAN; HUMAN RIGHTS; INFORMED CONSENT; LEGAL ASPECT; MALE; NOTE; PRIVACY; REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS; SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY; UNITED KINGDOM;

ADULT; CRYOPRESERVATION; EMBRYO; EMBRYO TRANSFER; EUROPEAN UNION; FEMALE; FERTILIZATION IN VITRO; GREAT BRITAIN; HUMAN RIGHTS; HUMANS; INFERTILITY, FEMALE; INFORMED CONSENT; MALE; PREJUDICE; PRIVACY; REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS; TISSUE DONORS;

EID: 33750461234     PISSN: 09670742     EISSN: 14643790     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/medlaw/fwl015     Document Type: Note

References (39)

1. Natallie Evans v. Amicus Healthcare and Others [2003] E.W.H.C. 261 at [2], hereafter Evans HC.
2. See also [2004] E.W.C.A. Civ 727. CA., hereafter Evans CA.
3. See press release 'Save my embryos - a plea to the European Court of Human Rights', 27 September 2005, available at: http://alexanderharris.co.uk/article/ Save_my_embryos_a_plea_to_the_European_Cout of_Human_Rights.htm (accessed 11.10.05).
4. Evans HC [174].
5. Application 53924/00; [2004] 2 F.C.R. 577.
6. At [46].
7. Evans CA [19].
8. Át [49].
9. Evans v. UK at [52].
10. At [60].
11. At [61] et seq.
12. At [2] of dissenting opinion.
13. Ibid. at [5].
14. Ibid. at [7] of dissenting opinion. Logically it should not make a difference, but then neither should Mr Johnston's bona fides which the domestic courts and the majority of the European Court made a point of accepting. The whole statutory scheme would be undermined if bad faith could negate a consent given in accordance with Schedule 3, as if one exception was carved out of the 'bright line rule' the door would be open for others to follow.
15. Silver and Others v. United Kingdom (1991) 13 E.H.R.R. 582.
16. S. Sheldon, 'Evans v. Amicus Healthcare; Hadley v. Midland Fertility Services - Revealing Cracks in the "Twin Pillars"?' (2004) 16(4) C.F.L.Q. 437 at 446 et seq.
17. Ibid. at 447.
18. Lopez Ostra v. Spain (1994) 20 E.H.R.R. 277
19. and Stjerna v. Finland (1994) 24 E.H.R.R. 185.
20. The tendency of Ms Evans's Counsel to refer to the embryos as if they belonged only to her was noted in the High Court, Evans HC at [237].
21. R. v. Human Fertilisation & Embryology Authority, ex p. Blood [1997] 2 All E.R. 687.
22. J. Harris, 'Rights and Reproductive Choice' in J. Harris and S. Holm (eds), The Future of Human Reproduction, (Oxford University Press 1998) at 18.
23. At [9] of dissenting opinion.
24. S. Sheldon, 'Gender Equality and Reproductive Decision-making' (2004) 12 Feminist Legal Studies 303 at 315.
25. Evans HC at [270].
26. Evans CA at [117].
27. Supra n.15 at footnote 98.
28. 'Egg freezing breakthrough will create generation of "ice babies"' available at: http://www.telegraph.co.uk.news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/10/09/ nfert09.xml09.10.05 (accessed 09.10.05).
29. Ibid. attributed to Dr Simon Fishel of the Care fertility centre in Nottingham.
30. Department of Health, Review of the Human Fertilisation & Embryology Act - A Public Consultation (Department of Health 2005) at para. 4.8.
31. T.C. Shevory, 'Through a Glass Darkly: Law, Politics and Embryos' in H. Bequaert Holmes (ed.), Issues in Reproductive Technology (New York University Press 1992) 231 at 232.
32. J. Miola, 'Mix-ups, Mistake and Moral Judgement: Recent Developments in UK Law on Assisted Conception' (2004) 12(1) Feminist Legal Studies 67 at 76 and note also that a justification offered for allowing Mr Johnston to revoke his consent was that it would not violate Ms Evans's bodily integrity because the embryos had not yet been implanted.
33. Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, Response by the Human Fertilisation & Embryology Authority to the Department of Health's consultation on the Review of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act (HFEA 2005), available at: http://www.dh.gov.uk/assetRoot/04/13/27/60/ 04132760.pdf (accessed 16.08.06).
34. A. Alghrani, 'Deciding the Fate of Frozen Embryos' (2005) 13(2) Medical Law Review 244 at 248.
35. See E. Jackson, 'Conception and the Irrelevance of the Welfare Principle' (2002) 65 M.L.R. 176.
36. The Government has sought views on whether the law should be changed to require the withdrawal of consent both gamete providers' consent before a stored embryo is allowed to perish: Department of Health, Report on the Consultation on the Review of the Human Fertilisation & Embryology Act 1990 (People, Science and Policy Ltd 2006).
37. S. Collier, 'Assisted Reproduction - Statutory Overhaul Overdue', (2004) 154(7140) New Law Journal, 1201.
38. According to the HFEA publication, Tomorrow's Children - a Consultation on Guidance to Licensed Fertility Clinics on Taking into Account the Welfare of Children to be Born of Assisted Conception Treatment (HFEA 2005).
39. A. Alghrani, supra n. 32 at 256.