A licence was sought so that a couple could have a child who would be tissue typed to establish his suitability to provide an umbilical cord after his birth to help treat his future brother. A licence had been granted subject to conditions, and the applicant now challenged the right of the Authority to grant that licence, saying that the proposal was not treatment within the Act, which should only extend to assisting women overcoming infertility.
Held: The purpose of the Act had been considered in extenso recently. The carrying of a child who would not suffer the same defect as an existing child was capable of assisting the mother to bear a child. ‘The fact that some practices (e.g. a biopsy) designed to secure the suitable condition, or determine the suitability, of embryos to be placed in a woman involve use of an embryo does not mean that all practices for such a purpose involve ‘use’ of the embryo, or therefore require to be licensed as activities under paragraph 1(1) of Schedule 2.’ The testing of the embryos was proper for that purpose.
Judges:
Lord Justice Mance Lord Justice Schiemann Lord Phillips Of Worth Matravers, Mr
Citations:
[2003] EWCA Civ 667, Times 20-May-2003, [2003] 2 WLR 1403, Gazette 10-Jul-2003, [2003] 2 AC 687, [2004] QB 168
Links:
Statutes:
Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for Health ex parte Quintavalle (on behalf of Pro-Life Alliance) HL 13-Mar-2003
Court to seek and Apply Parliamentary Intention
The appellant challenged the practice of permitting cell nuclear replacement (CNR), saying it was either outside the scope of the Act, or was for a purpose which could not be licensed under the Act.
Held: The challenge failed. The court was to . .
Cited by:
Cited – Carson and Reynolds v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions CA 17-Jun-2003
The claimant Reynolds challenged the differential treatment by age of jobseeker’s allowance. Carson complained that as a foreign resident pensioner, her benefits had not been uprated. The questions in each case were whether the benefit affected a . .
Cited – Evans v Amicus Healthcare Ltd and others CA 25-Jun-2004
The applicant challenged the decision of the court that the sperm donor who had fertilised her eggs to create embryos stored by the respondent IVF clinic, could withdraw his consent to their continued storage or use.
Held: The judge worked . .
Cited – In Re R (Parental responsibility: IVF baby); D (A Child), Re HL 12-May-2005
The parents had received IVF treatment together, but had separated before the child was born. The mother resisted an application by the father for a declaration of paternity.
Held: The father’s appeal failed. The Act made statutory provision . .
Appeal from – Quintavalle v Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority HL 28-Apr-2005
The parents of a boy suffering a serious genetic disorder sought IVF treament in which any embryo would be tested for its pre-implantation genetic status. Only an embryo capable of producing the stem cells necessary to cure the boy would be . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Health, Administrative
Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.182350
