The applicants were husband and wife who wanted infertility treatment by IVF. Mr Dickson as a prisoner, and they complained that the refusal of facilities was an interference in their right to family life as a refusal to fulfil a positive obligation.
Held: No breach was established. The requirements for compliance with article 8 were not clear cut, and facilities varied widely through the EU. The policy was to allow IVF for serving prisoners in exceptional circumstances, and was justified by welfare concerns and the maintenance of public confidence. The application had been carefully considered and could not be shown to be arbitrary or unreasonable.
Citations:
44362/04, Times 16-May-2006, [2006] ECHR 430, [2007] ECHR 17, [2011] ECHR 1662
Links:
Worldlii, Bailii, Bailii, Bailii
Statutes:
European Convention on Human Rights 8
Jurisdiction:
Human Rights
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Mellor CA 4-Apr-2001
A prisoner had no right to facilities to artificially inseminate his wife. In this case, he might not be released for several years, and there were no medical reasons advanced for finding exceptional reasons under the Department policy. Provided the . .
Cited by:
See Also – Dickson and Another v United Kingdom ECHR 15-Dec-2007
(Grand Chamber) The complainants were husband and wife. They had been married whilst the husband served a sentence of life imprisonment. They had been refused suport for artificial insemination treatment.
Held: The claim succeeded. The refusal . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights, Prisons, Health
Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.242614