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.
JacksonE. Medical law: text, cases and materials, 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010.
2.
Evans v Amicus Healthcare Ltd [2004] EWCA Civ 727.
3.
Schloendorff v Society of New York Hospital (1914) 211 NY 125.
4.
Ciarlariello v Schacter [1993] 2 SCR 119.
5.
LockDConsent to treatment: the competent patient. In: GrubbALaingJMcHaleJ (eds). Principles of medical law, 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010, pp. 439–472.
6.
FletcherNHoltJ. Ethics, law and nursing, Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1995.
7.
RazJ. The morality of freedom, 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986.
8.
Sidaway v Board of Governors of the Bethlem Royal Hospital [1985] AC 871.
9.
Great Britain. Department of Health and Social Security. Report of the Committee of Inquiry in Human Fertilisation and Embryology, London: The Stationary Office (Cmnd 9314), 1984.
10.
Yearworth v North Bristol NHS Trust [2009] EWCA Civ 372.
11.
FreemanMMedically assisted reproduction. In: GrubbALaingJMcHaleJ (eds). Principles of medical law, 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010, pp. 765–848.
12.
HarpwoodV. Legal issues in obstetrics, Dartmouth: Aldershot, 1996.
13.
Harris-ShortSRegulating reproduction: frozen embryos, consent, welfare and the equality myth. In: SmithSWDeazleyR (eds). The legal, medical and cultural regulations of the body, Farnham: Ashgate, 2009, pp. 47–76.
14.
St George’s Healthcare NHS Trust v S [1998] 3 WLR 936 (CA).
15.
MurphyTThe text of reproductive choice: law, ethnography and reproductive technologies. In: MurphyT (ed.). New technologies and human rights, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009, pp. 195–221.
16.
Re T [1993] 4 All ER 649.
17.
AnnettT. Balancing competing interests over frozen embryos: the judgment of Solomon?Med Law Rev2006; 14: 425–433.
18.
BeckUBeck-GernsheimE. Individualization, institutionalized individualism and its social and political consequences, London: Sage, 2003.
19.
PriaulxN. The harm paradox: tort law and the unwanted child in an era of choice, London: Routledge-Cavendish, 2007.
20.
BeverageFMullallySInternational human rights and body politics. In: BridgemanJMillnsS (eds). Law and body politics: regulating the female body, Dartmouth: Aldershot, 1995, pp. 240–272.
21.
AlghraniA. Deciding the fate of frozen embryos. Med Law Rev2005; 13: 244–256.
22.
Re C (Adult: Refusal of Treatment) [1994] 1 All ER 819.
23.
RichardsonJA. Children of choice, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994.
24.
QuigleyM. A right to reproduce. Bioethics2010; 24: 403–411.
