Deciding the Fate of Frozen Embryos

Alghrani, Amel

doi:10.1093/medlaw/fwi014

Cited by 9 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Equality of male and female autonomy assumes that all parties are equally situated with regard to the process, decision making and parenthood as a whole. 21 This raises a considerable issue: although in theoretical (and legal) terms the parties have an equal say, in practice women have a much larger role to play in the overall reproductive process and so to treat both male and female parties equally does not result in ''true equality'' per se. In response to this, whilst women do indeed carry a larger overall burden, until the point of conception (in natural reproduction) or implantation (in assisted reproduction) both parties have an equal say and are jointly responsible for the result; if one party withdraws consent, then the act cannot lawfully continue, whether reproduction happens naturally or through the use of assisted reproductive technologies.…”

Section: Consent and Autonomymentioning

confidence: 99%

Joint reproductive autonomy: does Evans v Amicus Healthcare Ltd provide for a gender-neutral approach to assisted reproductive rights?

Allin

2014

Med Leg J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Assisted reproductive technology encompasses methods of achieving pregnancy by artificial or partially artificial means. Whilst these methods are more commonly used by couples suffering from problems of infertility, some forms of assistance are employed by fertile couples, for example pre-implantation genetic diagnosis. The overall regulatory framework in the UK is predominantly found in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990. The usual rules relating to consent and autonomy apply and were discussed in depth in Evans v Amicus Healthcare Ltd and later in Evans v United Kingdom. This paper considers whether the Evans litigation envisages the possibility of further encouraging joint autonomy in the use of zygotes and whether there is a continuing right to autonomy by the party not bearing the pregnancy.

show abstract

Section: Consent and Autonomymentioning

confidence: 99%

Joint reproductive autonomy: does Evans v Amicus Healthcare Ltd provide for a gender-neutral approach to assisted reproductive rights?

Allin

2014

Med Leg J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…1174355 [2004]. For discussion, see Alghrani 2005;Forster 2000;Gardiner 2000;Harvard Law Review 2001;Robertson 1994, 113;Schuster et al 2003). There have also been cases where one or both of the parties involved in the creation of embryos has died, leaving behind them frozen embryos the fate of which then needs to be decided (Most notoriously, the case of the "Rios Embryos", which was publicised in Time Magazine in 1984.…”

Section: Reproductive Technologies and Reproductive Libertymentioning

confidence: 99%

Therapeutic Cloning and Reproductive Liberty

Sparrow

2009

Journal of Medicine and Philosophy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Concern for "reproductive liberty" suggests that decisions about embryos should normally be made by the persons who would be the genetic parents of the child that would be brought into existence if the embryo were brought to term. Therapeutic cloning would involve creating and destroying an embryo, which, if brought to term, would be the offspring of the genetic parents of the person undergoing therapy. I argue that central arguments in debates about parenthood and genetics therefore suggest that therapeutic cloning would be prima facie unethical unless it occurred with the consent of the parents of the person being cloned. Alternatively, if therapeutic cloning is thought to be legitimate, this undermines the case for some uses of reproductive cloning by implying that the genetic relation it establishes between clones and DNA donors does not carry the same moral weight as it does in cases of normal reproduction.

show abstract

“…An example of this chain of appeal of a member state's Supreme Court to the European Court is Evans v. Johnston HFEA et al [ 69 ]. This case presented the first opportunity the UK had to address the question of who should decide the fate of a frozen embryo when disputed by its two progenitors [ 70 ]. Following passage through the highest levels of the English judicial system, the Evans case was deliberated by the European Court of Human Rights.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Ms. Evans sought an injunction from the English courts compelling Mr. Johnston to restore his consent. She claimed that: (i) Mr. Johnston may not vary or withdraw his consent to the use of the embryos, (ii) The embryos may be stored throughout the remainder of the ten year period, (iii) Ms. Evans may lawfully be treated with embryos during the storage period, (iv) A declaration of incompatibility to the effect that Section 12 and Schedule 3 of the 1990 HFE Act 1990 breached her Article 8,12 and 14 rights of the ECHR, and (v) That the embryos are entitled to protection under Articles 2 and 8 of the ECHR [ 70 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…While the Court of Appeal determined that the refusal of treatment (due to Mr Johnston's withdrawal of consent) was an interference with Ms. Evans' right to respect for private life under Article 8 of the ECHR, the Court held this interference was proportionate to the need that made it legitimate. They did not recognise that this was Ms Evans's last chance to have a genetic child [ 70 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Determining the status of non-transferred embryos in Ireland: a conspectus of case law and implications for clinical IVF practice

Sills

Murphy

2009

Philos Ethics Humanit Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The development of in vitro fertilisation (IVF) as a treatment for human infertilty was among the most controversial medical achievements of the modern era. In Ireland, the fate and status of supranumary (non-transferred) embryos derived from IVF brings challenges both for clinical practice and public health policy because there is no judicial or legislative framework in place to address the medical, scientific, or ethical uncertainties. Complex legal issues exist regarding informed consent and ownership of embryos, particularly the use of non-transferred embryos if a couple separates or divorces. But since case law is only beginning to emerge from outside Ireland and because legislation on IVF and human embryo status is entirely absent here, this matter is poised to raise contractual, constitutional and property law issues at the highest level. Our analysis examines this medico-legal challenge in an Irish context, and summarises key decisions on this issue rendered from other jurisdictions. The contractual issues raised by the Roche case regarding informed consent and the implications the initial judgment may have for future disputes over embryos are also discussed. Our research also considers a putative Constitutional 'right to procreate' and the implications EU law may have for an Irish case concerning the fate of frozen embryos. Since current Medical Council guidelines are insufficient to ensure appropriate regulation of the advanced reproductive technologies in Ireland, the report of the Commission on Assisted Human Reproduction is most likely to influence embryo custody disputes. Public policy requires the establishment and implementation of a more comprehensive legislative framework within which assisted reproductive medical services are offered.

show abstract

Deciding the Fate of Frozen Embryos

Cited by 9 publications

References 0 publications

Joint reproductive autonomy: does Evans v Amicus Healthcare Ltd provide for a gender-neutral approach to assisted reproductive rights?

Joint reproductive autonomy: does Evans v Amicus Healthcare Ltd provide for a gender-neutral approach to assisted reproductive rights?

Therapeutic Cloning and Reproductive Liberty

Determining the status of non-transferred embryos in Ireland: a conspectus of case law and implications for clinical IVF practice

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About