European Court of Human Rights: Consent to IVF treatment

International Journal of Constitutional Law

Volumn 6, Issue 2, 2008, Pages 317-330

  Thornton, Rosy ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 42149100597     PISSN: 14742640     EISSN: 14742659     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/icon/mon001     Document Type: Article

References (99)

1. Evans v. United Kingdom, no. 6339/05, judgment of Apr. 10, 2007, available at http://hudoc.echr.coe.int.
2. European Convention on Human Rights, Nov. 4, 1950, 213 U.N.T.S. 221, as amended by Protocol No. 11, 155 E.T.S. (1994) (entered into force Nov. 1, 1998) available at http://conventions.coe.int [hereinafter European Convention].
3. See generally COLIN TURPIN & ADAM TOMKINS, BRITISH GOVERNMENT AND THE CONSTITUTION 264-278 (6th ed., Cambridge Univ. Press 2007).
4. Human Rights Act, 1998, c. 42, §1, sched. 1 (Eng.), available at http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1998/19980042.htm.
5. Id.
6. See CLARE OVEY & ROBIN A. WHITE, THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS 34-37 (4th ed., Oxford Univ. Press 2006).
7. Human Rights Act, §6(1).
8. Id. §4(2).
9. Id. §2.
10. European Convention, art. 35(1).
11. Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990, c. 37 (Eng.), available at http://www.opsi.gov. uk/cts/acts1990/ukpga_19900037_en_1.
12. [2003] EWHC (Fam) 2161 (Eng).
13. Id. at 183.
14. Id. at 248-260.
15. Id. at 178.
16. See also [2004] EWCA (Civ) 727, [19], [106]-[107] (Eng.).
17. [2004] EWCA (Civ) 727.
18. Id. at 73.
19. Id. at 117.
20. Id. at 73.
21. The decision to refuse permission was made by Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Baroness Hale of Richmond, and Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood. See House of Lords, Minutes of Proceedings, Nov. 18, 2004, available at http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ ld200304/minutes/041118/ldminute.htm.
22. Evans v. United Kingdom, no. 6339/05, judgment of Apr. 10, 2007, at 81.
23. The Court obtained comparative information regarding the legal position in other Council of Europe jurisdictions from COUNCIL OF EUROPE, MEDICALLY ASSISTED REPRODUCTION AND THE PROTECTION OF THE HUMAN EMBRYO: COMPARATIVE STUDY ON THE SITUATION IN 39 STATES (1998);
24. and COUNCIL OF EUROPE, REPLIES BY THE MEMBER STATES TO THE QUESTIONNAIRE ON ACCESS TO MEDICALLY ASSISTED PROCREATION (MAP) AND ON THE RIGHTS TO KNOW THEIR ORIGIN FOR CHILDREN BORN AFTER MAP (Council of Europe Steering Committee on Bioethics 2005), available at http://www.coe.int/t/e/legal_affairs/legal_co-operation/bioethics/ texts_and_documents/6Reports.asp. For further discussion of the comparative dimension, see below.
25. Evans v. United Kingdom, no. 6339/05, judgment of Apr. 10, 2007 at 77-81.
26. Id. at 86-87.
27. REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY INTO HUMAN FERTILISATION AND EMBRYOLOGY, Cm. 9314 (1984).
28. LEGISLATION ON HUMAN FERTILISATION AND EMBRYOLOGY RESEARCH: A CONSULTATION PAPER, Cm. 46 (1986).
29. HUMAN FERTILISATION AND EMBRYOLOGY: A FRAMEWORK FOR LEGISLATION, Cm. 259 (1987).
30. Evans v. United Kingdom, no. 6339/05, judgment of Apr. 10, 2007. at 60.
31. Appl. no. 2346/02.
32. Appl. no. 42326/98.
33. Evans v. United Kingdom, no. 6339/05, judgment of Apr. 10, 2007. at 89.
34. Evans v. United Kingdom, no. 6339/05, judgment of Mar. 7, 2006, available at http://hudoc. echr.coe.int.
35. Id. at 9.
36. Evans v. United Kingdom, no. 6339/05, judgment of Apr. 10, 2007, dissenting opinion at 6-7.
37. Id. at 41-42 (summary by the Grand Chamber of the legal position in other member states).
38. Law No. 94 - 653 of July 29, 1994, Journal Officiel de la République Française [J.O.][Official Gazette of France], July 29, 1994, art. 1 (statute on respect of the human body);
39. see also Melanie Latham, Regulating the New Reproductive Technologies: A Cross-Channel Comparison, 3 MED. L. INT'L. 89 (1998).
40. Fortpflantzungsmedizingesetz [Procreative Medicine Act] Bundesgesetzblatt [BGBl] No. 275/1992.
41. Artificial Insemination and Embryo Protection Act, (State Gazette 1997, No. 51, Article 824).
42. Health Act 1972 and Health Ministry Order, Nov. 4, 1972;
43. see also the Ethical Code drawn up by the Scientific Committee on Medical Affairs.
44. Law on Assisted Reproductive Techniques (B.O.E. 2003, Law 35/1988, No. 282).
45. Procreative Medicine Act art. I, §10.
46. See Derek Morgan & Erwin Bernat, The Reproductive Waltz: The Austrian Act on Procreative Medicine, 5 J. SOC. WELFARE & FAM. L. 420 (1992);
47. Erwin Bernat & Erich Vranes, The Austrian Act on Procreative Medicine: Scope, Impacts and Inconsistencies, 10 J. ASSISTED REPROD. & GENETICS 7, 449 (1993);
48. Derek Morgan & Erwin Bernat, Austrian Law on Procreative Medicine, BULL. MED. ETHICS, Nov. 1992, at 13.
49. Procreative Medicine Act, art. I, §17(1).
50. Id. at art.,§ 17(2).
51. Rules Concerning Medically Assisted Procreation, Gazz. Uff., Law No. 40/ 2004, Feb. 19, 2004.
52. Id. at art. 14(3).
53. Id. at art. 14(1), and Law No. 194/1978.
54. Rachel Anne Fenton, Catholic Doctrine Versus Women's Rights: The New Italian Law on Assisted Reproduction, 14 MED. L. REV. 73 (2006 ).
55. Evans v. United Kingdom, no. 6339/05, judgment of Apr. 10, 2007, at 43-48.
56. Id. at 49;
57. see Nachmani v. Nachmani [1996] 50(4) P.D. 661 (Isr).
58. Darren Langdridge & Eric Blyth, Regulation of Assisted Conception Services in Europe: Implications of the New Reproductive Technologies for 'the Family', 23 J. SOC. WELFARE & FAM. L. 1, 48 (2001 );
59. Linda Nielsen, Legal Consensus and Divergence in Europe in the Area of Assisted Conception - Room for Harmonisation?, in CREATING THE CHILD: THE ETHICS, LAW AND PRACTICE OF ASSISTED PROCREATION (Donald Evans ed., Springer 1996).
60. Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Dignity of the Human Being with regard to the Application of Biology and Medicine: Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine, Apr. 4, 1997, available at http://conventions.coe.int/treaty/en/treaties/html/164.htm.
61. Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights, U.N. Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) Res. 36, 18th plen. mtg. (Oct. 19, 2005), available at http://portal.unesco.org/en/ ev.php-URL_ID=31058&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html.
62. Evans v. United Kingdom, no. 6339/05, judgment of Mar. 7, 2006. at 52.
63. Id. at 66.
64. Evans v. United Kingdom, no. 6339/05, judgment of Apr. 10, 2007 at 80.
65. Id. at 76. (Note that in the Grand Chamber the majority preferred to see Johnston as refusing rather than withdrawing his consent to implantation, since his initial consent was given only for Evans to be treated jointly with himself. However, the distinction was not regarded as relevant to the convention issues.)
66. LAW AND MEDICAL ETHICS 102 (7th ed., Kenyon Mason & Graeme Laurie eds., Oxford Univ. Press, 2005).
67. See also Kenyon Mason, Discord and Disposal of Embryos, 8 EDINBURGH L. REV. 84, 91 (2004).
68. [2004] EWCA (Civ) 727, at 81.
69. Craig Lind, Evans v. United Kingdom - Judgements of Solomon: Power, Gender and Procreation, 18 CHILD & FAM. L. Q. 4, 576 (2006);
70. see also Sally Sheldon, Gender Equality and Reproductive Decision-Making, 12 FEMINIST LEGAL STUD. 303 (2004).
71. [2004] EWCA (Civ) 727, at 89.
72. [2004] EWCA (Civ) 727, at 32 (the Court of Appeal specifically raised this possibility but Johnston declined).
73. Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990, c. 37, §28(3)-(4).
74. Sally Sheldon, Revealing Cracks in the Twin Pillars? 16 CHILD & FAM. L. Q. 4, 448-449 (2004).
75. See Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act, §28(3) (Eng.); and Re R (IVF: Paternity of Child) [2003] EWCA (Civ) 182; consider also the situation of a woman undergoing treatment alone using sperm from a donor.
76. Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act, sched. 3, para. 6(3).
77. Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act, §28(4).
78. See Evans's submissions to the Grand Chamber, Evans v. United Kingdom, no. 6339/05, judgment of Apr. 10, 2007, at 63. Note, however, that since April 1, 2004, sperm donors have had their right to anonymity removed in the U.K.:
79. see Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (Disclosure of Donor Information) Regulations 2004, SI 1511/2004.
80. See [2003] EWHC (Fam) 2161, at 320.
81. Note, however, the situation under Italian law. See Fenton, supra note 47.
82. Evans v. United Kingdom, no. 6339/05, judgment of Mar. 7, 2006, at 66.
83. Evans v. United Kingdom, no. 6339/05, judgment of Apr. 10, 2007, dissenting opinion at 14.
84. U.N. Committee to End All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) General Recommendation No. 24, 20th Sess. (1999), available at http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/recommendations/ recomm.htm#recom24.
85. The majority in the Grand Chamber treated the "lapse of time... between creation of the embryo and its implantation in the uterus" as a distinction between IVF and fertilization through sexual intercourse (Evans v. United Kingdom, no. 6339/05, judgment of Apr. 10, 2007, at 84), overlooking the fact that in natural reproduction, too, there exists such a gap - which, although short, is of crucial significance, due to the possibility of intervention via the postcoital pill.
86. Patricia Smith, On Equality: Justice, Discrimination and Equal Treatment, in FEMINIST JURISPRUDENCE 17, 17 (Patricia Smith ed., Oxford Univ. Press 1993).
87. The literature is extremely extensive: see, e.g., Martha Minow, Rights of One's Own, 98 HARV. L. REV. 5, 1084 (1985);
88. ELIZABETH KINGDOM, WHAT'S WRONG WITH RIGHTS? 120-121 (Edinburgh Univ. Press 1991);
89. Julia Sohrab, Avoiding the Exquisite Trap': A Critical Look at the Equal Treatment/Special Treatment Debate in Law, 1 FEMINIST LEGAL STUD. 141 (1993).
90. Smith, supra note 74, at 21.
91. CAROL LEE BACCHI, SAME DIFFERENCE: FEMINISM AND SEXUAL DIFFERENCE, at xv (Allen & Unwin 1990).
92. Evans v. United Kingdom, no. 6339/05, judgment of Mar. 7, 2006, at 65;
93. see also dissenting opinion at 9.
94. Evans v. United Kingdom, no. 6339/05, judgment of Mar. 7, 2006, at 65.
95. See also Evans v. United Kingdom, no. 6339/05, judgment of Apr. 10, 2007, at 89.
96. Evans v. United Kingdom, no. 6339/05, judgment of Mar. 7, 2006, at 65.
97. See also [2004] EWCA (Civ) 727. at 69.
98. Fortpfl. antzungsmedizingesetz [Procreative Medicine Act] Bundesgesetzblatt [BGBl] No. 275/1992.
99. Artificial Insemination and Embryo Protection Act, (State Gazette 1997, No. 51, Article 824).