Our articles are written by experts in their field and include barristers, solicitors, judges, mediators, academics and professionals from a range of related disciplines. Family Law provides a platform for debate for all the important topics, from divorce and care proceedings to transparency and access to justice. If you would like to contribute please email editor@familylaw.co.uk.
Spotlight
Children and Same Sex Families
Children and Same Sex Families
Children and Same Sex Families: A Legal Handbook
More info
Mental Capacity
Mental Capacity
Mental Capacity: Law and Practice
More info
Evidence in Family Proceedings
Evidence in Family Proceedings
Evidence in Family Proceedings
More info
View All
A day in the life Of...
Read on

IVF treatment and consent: the rights of the individual and the public interest

© Copyright LexisNexis 2024. All rights reserved.
Date:2 JUL 2007

Susan Heenan, Senior Lecturer, University of the West of England. The widely-reported European Court of Human Rights case of Evans v United Kingdom (Application No 6339/05) was not only contentious in the newspapers. As Natallie Evans' fight to be allowed to use six frozen embryos created during a relationship with her ex-partner progressed through the courts the legal issues that arose from this personal conflict were also disagreed upon amongst the judiciary.

Particularly in the European Court of Human Rights the dissenting voices were strong. In this article the author gets to grips with the arguments at the core of this case and the reasons why some judges fought against the tide of the majority. The point raised by Evans is difficult to legislate on and it is yet to be seen whether the case will have an impact on reform of the current legislation. For the full article see July [2007] Fam Law.

Read the full article here.

Copyright © 2024 LexisNexis