Spotlight
Family Court Practice, The
Order the 2021 edition due out in May
Court of Protection Practice 2021
'Court of Protection Practice goes from strength to strength, having...
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance Tenth Edition
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance is an authoritative specialist text...
Spotlight
Latest articles
Disabled women more than twice as likely to experience domestic abuse
The latest data from the Office of National Statistics shows that, in the year ending March 2020, around 1 in 7 (14.3%) disabled people aged 16 to 59 years experienced any form of domestic abuse in...
The President of the Family Division endorses Public Law Working Group report
The Courts and Tribunals Judiciary has published a message from the President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, in which the President endorses the publication of the President’s...
HMCTS updates online divorce services guidance
HM Courts and Tribunals Service have recently updated the online divorce services guidance with the addition of guides for deemed and dispensed service applications, alternative service...
Become the new General Editor of The Family Court Practice, the definitive word on family law and procedure
The Family Court Practice (‘The Red Book’) is widely acknowledged as the leading court reference work for all family practitioners and the judiciary. We are currently recruiting a...
The suspension, during lockdown, of prison visits for children: was it lawful?
Jake Richards, 9 Gough ChambersThis article argues that the suspension on prison visits during this period and the deficiency of measures to mitigate the impact of this on family life and to protect...
View all articles
Authors

IVF Consent

Sep 29, 2018, 17:32 PM
Slug : ivf-consent
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Mar 8, 2006, 11:37 AM
Article ID : 88165

Evans v UK (European Court of Human Rights, 7 March 2006, Application no 6339/05). In July 2000, Ms Evans and her partner, J, started fertility treatment. In October, Ms Evans was diagnosed with a pre-cancerous condition of her ovaries and was offered one cycle of in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatment prior to the surgical removal of her ovaries. During a consultation held the same day with medical staff, Ms Evans and her partner, J, were informed that they would each need to sign a form consenting to the treatment and that, in accordance with the provisions of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 (the 1990 Act), it would be possible for either of them to withdraw his or her consent at any time before the embryos were implanted in the applicant's uterus. In November 2000, the couple attended the clinic for treatment, resulting in the creation of six embryos which were placed in storage and Ms Evans underwent an operation to remove her ovaries. She was told she would need to wait for 2 years before the implantation of the embryos in her uterus. In May 2002, the relationship between the applicant and J ended and he withdrew his consent to the continued storage of the embryos or use of them by the applicant. Ms Evans brought proceedings in the High Court seeking, among other things, an injunction to require J to restore his consent. Her claim was refused in October 2003. In October 2004, the Court of Appeal upheld the High Court's judgment. Leave to appeal was refused. On 27 February 2005, the European Court of Human Rights (the Court) to which the applicant had applied, requested, under r 39 of the Rules of the Court, that the UK Government take appropriate measures to prevent the embryos being destroyed by the clinic before the court had been able to examine the case.

The Court decided that there had been no breach of the right of the embryos, under Art 2 (the right to life) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950. Under English law, an embryo did not have independent rights or interests and could not claim or have claimed on its behalf a right to life under Art 2. Neither had there been a breach of the applicant's right to respect for private and family life under Art 8. J had acted in good faith in embarking on IVF treatment with Ms Evans and did so only on the basis that their relationship would continue. The Court observed that there was no international consensus with regard to the regulation of IVF treatment or to the use of embryos created by such treatment, and that the UK was not the only Member State of the Council of Europe to give a right to either party freely to withdraw his or her consent at any stage up to the moment of implantation of the embryo.

The Court, like the UK national courts, had great sympathy for the plight of the applicant who, if implantation did not take place, would be deprived of the ability to give birth to her own child. However, like the national courts, the Court did not find that the absence of a power to override a genetic parents withdrawal of consent, even in the exceptional circumstances of the applicant's case, was such as to upset the fair balance required by Art 8. See May [2006] Fam Law for the full news article.

Categories :
  • News
Tags :
Authors
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from