This website uses cookies

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. By using our website, you agree to our Privacy Policy

Fertility treatment legal safeguards

Fertility treatment legal safeguards


A recent study underscores the critical need to maintain explicit legal rules regarding the use of sperm and eggs in fertility treatment, especially concerning incapacitated individuals.

The research highlights concerns arising from recent court cases that have potentially weakened the established consent regime, posing risks to informed consent in the realm of fertility treatments.

Challenges to Rigorous Consent: Despite existing strict laws in England and Wales governing the use of reproductive materials, the study notes a shift in recent court decisions that could undermine the current robust consent framework. Notably, cases such as "Y v A Healthcare NHS Trust [2018] EWCOP18" have raised concerns about potential exceptions to the informed consent requirement, creating a delicate legal situation.

Potential for Unethical Practices: The study warns of the possibility that recent court precedents might be exploited, allowing individuals to pursue fertility treatments without the knowledge or consent of their incapacitated partners. This raises ethical and legal concerns about the misuse of genetic material and the potential for creating a 'perfect family' without the informed consent of the individuals involved.

The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990: The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990, amended in 2008, serves as the legal foundation for fertility treatments in the UK. The Act mandates written, informed consent from all parties involved to ensure the ethical use of reproductive materials within specified parameters.

Landmark Cases and Concerns: The study draws attention to landmark cases like "Y v A Healthcare NHS Trust," where judges authorized the use of sperm from a suspected brain-dead man for procreative purposes under the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Subsequent decisions and a public consultation by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority have sparked concerns about potential shifts in consent requirements.

Maintaining the Benchmark: Dr. Lisa Cherkassky, author of the study from the University of Exeter Law School, emphasizes that the existing legal framework, particularly the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990, should remain the benchmark for lawful fertility treatment in the UK. Dr. Cherkassky raises concerns about the potential exploitation of incapacitated patients for their reproductive materials and stresses the ethical importance of upholding rigorous consent in medical care.

Conclusion: The study's findings call for a vigilant stance in preserving the legal safeguards surrounding informed consent in fertility treatment. As the landscape evolves, the ethical and legal implications of potential exceptions to consent requirements must be carefully considered to ensure the protection of vulnerable individuals and the maintenance of a trustworthy and accountable fertility treatment framework.