The Centre for Reproductive Medicine v U: FD 24 Jan 2002

The defendant sought to use the sperm of her deceased husband for her insemination. The deceased had apparently withdrawn his consent to the use of his sperm posthumously. His widow claimed that he had been influenced to change the form, by an implied threat that the treatment would not continue.
Held: the case of re T established that for undue influence it must be shown that the patients will was overborne. That was not the case here.
The President
[2002] EWHC 36 (Fam)
Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedRegina v Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority ex parte DB CA 6-Feb-1997
At the applicant’s request samples of sperm were taken from her husband hours prior to his death, when he was in a coma.
Held: Sperm cannot lawfully be taken from a comatose man in order later to allow his surviving wife to be artificially . .
CitedIn re T (Adult: Refusal of Treatment) CA 1992
A patient’s right to veto medical treatment is absolute: ‘This right of choice is not limited to decisions which others might regard as sensible. It exists notwithstanding that the reasons for making the choice are rational, irrational, unknown or . .

Cited by:
Appeal fromMrs U v Centre for Reproductive Medicine CA 2002
The 1990 Act lays great emphasis upon consent. Scientific techniques developed since the first IVF baby open up the possibility of creating human life in quite new ways bringing huge practical and ethical difficulties. These have to be balanced . .
Appeal fromU v Centre for Reproductive Medicine CA 24-Apr-2002
The claimant appealed a refusal to grant an order preventing the destruction of the sperm of her late husband held by the respondent fertility clinic. The clinic had persuaded her husband to sign a form of consent for this purpose. The claimant said . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 February 2021; Ref: scu.167528