The human fertilisation and embryology act 2008: Tinkering at the margins

Feminist Legal Studies

Volumn 17, Issue 3, 2009, Pages 333-344

  Fox, Marie ^a  

^a KEELE UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Embryo research; Feminist strategy; Legislative reform; Parenthood; Reproduction

Indexed keywords

EID: 77949295026     PISSN: 09663622     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10691-009-9129-2     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Blackstock, Colin. 2004. No need for fathers in IVF treatment says fertility chief. The Guardian, February 21.
2. Brazier, Margaret. 1999. Liberty, responsibility, maternity. Current Legal Problems 52: 359-391.
3. Brazier, Margaret. 2009. Being human: Of liberty and privilege. In The legal, medical and cultural regulation of the body: Transformation and transgression, ed. Stephen Smith, and Ronan Deazley, 1-14. Aldershot: Ashgate.
4. Brazier, Margaret, and Emma Cave. 2007. Medicine, patients and the law, 4th ed. London: Penguin.
5. Burrell, Riitta. 2005. Feminist views on sex selection. In Preimplantation genetic diagnosis and embryo selection, ed. Ingileif Jónsdóttir, 143-157. Copenhagen: TemaNord.
6. Department of Health. 2000. Government response to the recommendations made in the Chief Medical Officer's expert group report, Cm 4833. Norwich: HMSO.
7. Department of Health. 2005. Review of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act: A public consultation. London: Department of Health.
8. Department of Health. 2006. Review of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act: Proposals for revised legislation (including the establishment of the Regulatory Authority for Tissue and Embryos), Cm 6989. Norwich: HMSO.
9. Department of Health. 2007a. Government response to the report from the Joint Committee on the Human Tissue and Embryos (Draft) Bill, Cm 7209. Norwich: HMSO.
10. Department of Health. 2007b. Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2007: An illustrative text. http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsLegislation/DH_080205. Accessed 29 September 2009.
11. Ford, Mary. 2009. Nothing and not-nothing: Law's ambivalent response to transformation and transgression at the beginning of life. In The legal, medical and cultural regulation of the body: Transformation and transgression, ed. Stephen Smith, and Ronan Deazley, 21-47. Aldershot: Ashgate.
12. Fox, Marie. 2006. Exposing harm: The erasure of animal bodies in health care law. In First do no harm: Law, ethics and healthcare, ed. Sheila McLean, 543-561. Aldershot: Ashgate.
13. Fox, Marie. 2009. Legislating interspecies embryos. In The legal, medical and cultural regulation of the body: Transformation and transgression, ed. Stephen Smith, and Ronan Deazley, 95-126. Aldershot: Ashgate.
14. Franklin, Sarah. 2006. The cyborg embryo: Our path to transbiology. Theory, Culture Society 23: 167-187.
15. Freeman, Michael. 2004. Medically assisted reproduction. In Principles of medical law, ed. Andrew Grubb, 639-738. Oxford: OUP.
16. Häyry, Matti. 2004. There is a difference between selecting a deaf embryo and deafening a hearing child. Journal of Medical Ethics 30: 510-512.
17. Holm, Soren. 1998. Ethical issues in pre-implantation diagnosis. In The future of human reproduction: Choice and regulation, ed. John Harris, and Soren Holm, 176-190. Oxford: OUP.
18. Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. 2004. Revised pre-implantation testing guidance. http://www.hfea.gov.uk/2677.html. Accessed 30 September 2009.
19. Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. 2007. Hybrids and chimeras: A report on the findings of the consultation. http://www.hfea.gov.uk/docs/Hybrids_Report.pdf. Accessed 29 September 2009.
20. Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. 2009. Code of practice, 8th ed. London: HFEA.
21. House of Commons Science and Technology Committee. 2002. Developments in human genetics and embryology: Fourth report of session 2001-2, HC 791. London: HMSO.
22. House of Commons Science and Technology Committee. 2005. Human reproductive technologies and the law: Fifth report of session 2004-5, Vol 1, HC 7-1. London: HMSO.
23. House of Lords, House of Commons, Joint Committee on the Human Tissue and Embryos (Draft) Bill. 2007. Report on the Human Tissue and Embryos (Draft) Bill: Session 2006-7, Vol 1, HL Paper 169-I, HC Paper 630-I. London: TSO.
24. Jackson, Emily. 2002. Conception and the irrelevance of the welfare principle. Modern Law Review 65: 176-203.
25. Jackson, Emily. 2008. The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill. Expert Review of Obstetrics & Gynecology 3: 429-432.
26. Jones, Caroline. 2009a. Exploring the routes from consultation to (in]forming public policy. In Law and bioethics, ed. Michael Freeman, 257-285. Oxford: OUP (forthcoming).
27. Jones, Caroline. 2009b. The identification of 'parents' and 'siblings': New possibilities under the reformed Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act. In Rights, gender and family law, ed. Julie Wallbank, Shazia Choudhry, and Jonathan Herring. Abingdon: Routledge-Cavendish.
28. Karpin, Isabel. 2006. The uncanny embryos: Legal limits to the human and reproduction without women. Sydney Law Review 28: 599-623.
29. Lee, Robert, and Derek Morgan. 2001. Human fertilisation and embryology: Regulating the reproductive revolution. London: Blackstone Press.
30. McCandless, Julie, and Sally, Sheldon. 2010. The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 and the tenacity of the sexual family form. Modern Law Review 73 (forthcoming).
31. Miola, Jose. 2004. Mix-ups, mistake and moral judgement: Recent developments in UK law on assisted conception. Feminist Legal Studies 12: 66-77.
32. Pattinson, Shaun. 2009. Medical law and ethics, 2nd ed. London: Sweet & Maxwell.
33. Scott, Rosamund. 2006. Choosing between possible lives: Legal and ethical issues in preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 26: 153-178.
34. Sheldon, Sally. 2009. A missed opportunity to reform an outdated law. Clinical Ethics 4: 3-5.
35. Thompson, Charis. 2005. Making parents: The ontological choreography of reproductive technologies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
36. Thomson, Michael. 1997. Legislating for the monstrous: Access to reproductive services and the monstrous feminine. Social and Legal Studies 6: 401-424.
37. Wallbank, Julie. 2002. Too many mothers? Surrogacy, kinship and the welfare of the child. Medical Law Review 10: 271-294.
38. Wallbank, Julie. 2004. The role of rights and utility in instituting a child's right to know her genetic history. Social and Legal Studies 13: 245-264.
39. Warnock, Mary. 1984. Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Human Fertilisation and Embryology, Cm 9314. London: HMSO.
40. Wertz, Dorothy C., and John C. Fletcher. 1998. Ethical and social issues in prenatal sex selection: A survey of geneticists in 27 nations. Social Science and Medicine 46: 255-273.
41. Wilkinson, Stephen. 2008. Sexism, sex selection and 'family balancing'. Medical Law Review 16: 369-389.
42. Williamson, Laura, Marie Fox, and Sheila McLean. 2007. The regulation of xenotransplantation in the United Kingdom after UKXIRA: Legal and ethical issues. Journal of Law and Society 34: 441-464.