The Department of Health Review of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990

Clinical Ethics

Volumn 1, Issue 4, 2006, Pages 200-204

  Jones, Caroline ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84992862300     PISSN: 14777509     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1258/147775006779151175     Document Type: Article

References (53)

1. Flint C, MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Public Health. Foreword to the Department of Health (DoH) Review of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990. London: DoH, 2005: 3. Available at www.dh.gov.uk/assetRoot/04/11/78/72/04117872.pdf (accessed 06/07/2006)
2. Montgomery J. Rights, restraints and pragmatism: the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990. Modern Law Review 1991; 54:524
3. See for example Leather S, HFEA Chair. Response to Arms Length Bodies Review. London: HFEA, 22 July 2004. Available at www. hfea.gov.uk/PressOffice/Archive/1090496673 (accessed 06/07/2006)
4. See also the Human Reproductive Cloning Act 2001, prohibiting the placing in a woman of an ‘embryo which has been created otherwise than by fertilisation’
5. Though section 27 Family Law Reform Act 1987 had previously ensured that where married couples used donor insemination the husband would be legally recognized as the resulting child's father
6. Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Human Fertilisation and Embryology, Cmnd 9314. London: DoH and DSS, 1984
7. DoH. Reconfiguring the Department of Health's Arm's Length Bodies. London: DoH, 22 July 2004. Available at www.dh.gov.uk/assetRoot/04/09/81/36/04098136.pdf (accessed 10/07/2006). See also the Report of the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee. Human Reproductive Technologies and the Law, Volume I, HC 7-1, Fifth Report of session 2004-05 (the culmination of a year long inquiry)
8. DoH, 2005
9. DoH, 2005: 6
10. Currently termed the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act (Amendment) Regulations. See DoH website www.dh.gov.uk (accessed 02/08/2006) for more details
11. Brazier M, Fovargue S. A brief guide to the Human Tissue Act 2004. Clin Ethics 2006;1:26-32
12. Currently termed the Human Tissue (Quality and Safety for Human Application) Regulations. See DoH website www.dh.gov.uk (accessed 02/08/2006) for more details
13. Available at www.dh.gov.uk/Consultations/LiveConsultations/LiveConsultations Article/fs/en?CONTENT_ID=4136740&chk=oHvkpR (accessed 02/08/2006)
14. The charity Progress Educational Trust also provided an on-line forum, funded by the DoH, on the Review of the HFEA 1990. For their report see: www.progress.org.uk/Events/Downloads/discussion_report.pdf (accessed 11/07/2006)
15. DoH, 2005: 12-13
16. DoH, 2005: 12-13
17. Section 1(1) HFEA 1990
18. ‘“Lab-made sperm” fertility hope’. BBC News website 11 July 2006. Available at http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/fr/-/1/hi/health/5166462. stm (accessed 11/07/2006)
19. Douglas G. Assisted reproduction and the welfare of the child. Current Legal Problems 1993:53
20. Jackson E. Conception and the irrelevance of the welfare principle. Modern Law Review 2002;65:176. For a defence of the welfare principle see Laing JA, Oderberg DS. Artificial reproduction, the ‘welfare principle’, and the common good. Medical Law Review 2005;13:328
21. DoH, 2005: 29
22. Reference was made to the Review of the Common Law Provisions Relating to the Removal of Gametes and of the Consent Provisions in the HFEA 1990, led by Professor Sheila McLean, July 1998
23. Evans v UK APP NO 6339/05, [2006] 1 FCR 585
24. DoH, 2005: 42
25. DoH, 2005: 46-47
26. The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (Disclosure of Donor Information) Regulations 2004, SI 2004/1511. London: HMSO, 2004
27. DoH, 2005: 50
28. Report of the Review Team. Surrogacy: Review for Health Ministers of Current Arrangements for Payments and Regulation. Cm 4068. London: DoH, October 1998
29. DoH, 2005: 63, also 65
30. DoH, 2005: 72
31. DoH, 2005: 72-75
32. The report and all 535 individual responses are available at www.dh.gov.uk/Consultations/ResponsesToConsultations/Responses ToConsultationsDocumentSummary/fs/en?CONTENT_ID=4132358 &chk=CnrKSR (accessed 12/07/2006)
33. DoH, 2006: 5 para 2.2. See also the response from the Medical Ethics Unit, Dept of Primary Care and Social Medicine, Imperial College London; also Health Ethics and Law network, University of Southampton (HEAL UoS)
34. DoH, 2006: 5 para 2.2. For similar comments in relation to RATE see Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, DoH, 2006: 76 para 10.2.2
35. Montgomery J. Health Care Law, 2nd Edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003: 489
36. Available at http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1990/Ukpga_19900037_en_1.htm
37. However, on the 1 August 2006 she stepped down as chair of the HFEA. Available at http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/newsroom/news_releases/2006/060615_charity.asp (accessed 14/07/2006). At the time of writing her successor had not been announced but Lord Richard Harries is currently acting as Interim Chair
38. Available at http://www.hfea.gov.uk/cps/rde/xchg/SID-3F57D79BE7D38F2F/hfea/hs.xsl/384.html (accessed 14/07/2006)
39. Montgomery J. Health Care Law, 2nd Edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003: 490. Montgomery was referring to the membership in 2000, but given the present composition of the HFEA his comments remain salient in 2006
40. HFEA. HFEA - Authority decision on PGD Policy. London: HFEA, 10 May 2006. Available at www.hfea.gov.uk (accessed 14/07/06)
41. DoH, 2006: 5 para 2.2
42. DoH, 2006: 11 para 2.7
43. Anonymous individual lawyer, DoH, 2006: 5 para 2.2. See also page 10, para 2.7; and p 34 para 5.2 (comments by individuals on democracy)
44. DoH, 2006: 78, para 10.4
45. Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, DoH, 2006: 76, para 10.2.2
46. Individual Minister of Religion, DoH, 2006: 75: para 10.1
47. See especially DoH, 2006: 7, para 1.13
48. Association of Clinical Embryologists, DoH, 2006: 74, para 10.1
49. The Lawyers’ Christian Fellowship and The Royal Society, DoH, 2006: 74, para 10.1
50. HEAL UoS, response to question 67, available at www. dh.gov.uk/Consultations/ResponsesToConsultations/ResponsesToCo nsultationsDocumentSummary/fs/en?CONTENT_ID=4132358&chk =CnrKSR (accessed 12/07/2006)
51. Op cit. fn 7. For a discussion of this report see Montgomery J. The Legitimacy of Medical Law. In McLean S (ed). First Do No Harm: Law Ethics and Medicine Aldershot: Ashgate, 2006:1-15
52. For example, the Infertility Treatment Authority (ITA) is the statutory body governing the regulation of assisted conception in the State of Victoria, Australia under the Infertility Treatment Act 1995, and similar statutory bodies also exist in the States of South Australia and Western Australia. Available at http://www.ita.org.au/www/257/1001127/displayarticle/1001207.html (accessed 02/08/2006). For a discussion of regulatory frameworks internationally see Lee RG, Morgan D. Human Fertilisation and Embryology Regulating the Reproductive Revolution, 2nd Edn. London: Blackstone Press Limited, 2001: 265-305; also Gunning J, Szoke H (eds). The Regulation of Assisted Reproductive Technology. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing Limited, 2003
53. When giving evidence to the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee. Available at www.news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/- /hi/health/5175640.stm (accessed 13/07/2006)