Skip to main content
Log in

The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008: Tinkering at the Margins

  • Legislative Note
  • Published:
Feminist Legal Studies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This note suggests that, viewed from a feminist perspective, the reforms contained in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 represent a missed opportunity to re-think the appropriate model of regulation to govern fertility treatment and embryology research in the UK. It argues that reform of the legislation was driven largely by the government’s desire to avoid re-igniting controversies over the legal status of the embryo and abortion and to maintain Britain’s position at the forefront of embryo research and related biotechnologies. It also highlights the importance of media debates, which were highly selective, to the reform process, and suggests that in order to inject feminist values into the process of legislative reform, feminists need to become more media savvy. In the short term, it suggests that there is little prospect of a radical re-thinking of the appropriate ethico-legal response to the wide variety of family forms that reproductive technologies potentially enable, much less of considering our ethical obligations to the new forms of embryos that are now permitted by the 2008 Act. In the meantime, however, it argues that these issues provide productive opportunities for feminist legal theorists to address questions that have been erased or obscured in the course of the 2008 reforms.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. R v Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, ex parte Blood [1997] 2 All ER 687; Evans vUnited Kingdom (2008) 46 EHRR 34; Rose v Secretary of State for Health and Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority [2003] 2 FLR 962.

  2. R (Quintavalle) v Secretary of State for Health [2003] 2 All ER 113; R (on the application of Quintavalle) v Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority [2005] 2 All ER 555.

  3. SI 2004/1511; SI 2007/1523. The latter regulations implemented Directive 2004/23EC on setting standards of quality and safety for the donation, procurement, testing, processing, preservation, storage and distribution of human tissues and cells [2004] OJ L102/48, which signaled the growing impact of EU legislation in this field.

  4. See http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2007-08/humanfertilisationandembryology.html for details of the amendments (accessed 29 September 2009).

  5. Other changes not discussed here include extensions to the statutory storage period for gametes and embryos, the insertion of a year long ‘cooling’ off period should a gamete provider wish to withdraw consent to the use of an embryo created with their gametes, and reforms to how voluntary bodies which set up surrogacy arrangements may recoup costs.

  6. Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (Disclosure of Donor Information) Regulations 2004, supra n 3.

  7. See R (Quintavalle) v Secretary of State for Health, supra n 2.

  8. Schedule 2 para 3(5) of the 1990 Act permitted the mixing of human sperm with hamster eggs to test the fertility of sperm provided the resulting mixture was immediately destroyed.

  9. The animal suffering inflicted by attempts at cloning prior to Dolly’s birth, her early demise and a catalogue of disabilities imposed on other animals are now well documented (Fox 2006).

References

  • Blackstock, Colin. 2004. No need for fathers in IVF treatment says fertility chief. The Guardian, February 21.

  • Brazier, Margaret. 1999. Liberty, responsibility, maternity. Current Legal Problems 52: 359–391.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brazier, Margaret. 2009. Being human: Of liberty and privilege. In The legal, medical and cultural regulation of the body: Transformation and transgression, ed. Stephen Smith, and Ronan Deazley, 1–14. Aldershot: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brazier, Margaret, and Emma Cave. 2007. Medicine, patients and the law, 4th ed. London: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burrell, Riitta. 2005. Feminist views on sex selection. In Preimplantation genetic diagnosis and embryo selection, ed. Ingileif Jónsdóttir, 143–157. Copenhagen: TemaNord.

    Google Scholar 

  • Department of Health. 2000. Government response to the recommendations made in the Chief Medical Officer’s expert group report, Cm 4833. Norwich: HMSO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Department of Health. 2005. Review of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act: A public consultation. London: Department of Health.

    Google Scholar 

  • Department of Health. 2006. Review of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act: Proposals for revised legislation (including the establishment of the Regulatory Authority for Tissue and Embryos), Cm 6989. Norwich: HMSO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Department of Health. 2007a. Government response to the report from the Joint Committee on the Human Tissue and Embryos (Draft) Bill, Cm 7209. Norwich: HMSO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Department of Health. 2007b. Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2007: An illustrative text. http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsLegislation/DH_080205. Accessed 29 September 2009.

  • Ford, Mary. 2009. Nothing and not-nothing: Law’s ambivalent response to transformation and transgression at the beginning of life. In The legal, medical and cultural regulation of the body: Transformation and transgression, ed. Stephen Smith, and Ronan Deazley, 21–47. Aldershot: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fox, Marie. 2006. Exposing harm: The erasure of animal bodies in health care law. In First do no harm: Law, ethics and healthcare, ed. Sheila McLean, 543–561. Aldershot: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fox, Marie. 2009. Legislating interspecies embryos. In The legal, medical and cultural regulation of the body: Transformation and transgression, ed. Stephen Smith, and Ronan Deazley, 95–126. Aldershot: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Franklin, Sarah. 2006. The cyborg embryo: Our path to transbiology. Theory, Culture Society 23: 167–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, Michael. 2004. Medically assisted reproduction. In Principles of medical law, ed. Andrew Grubb, 639–738. Oxford: OUP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Häyry, Matti. 2004. There is a difference between selecting a deaf embryo and deafening a hearing child. Journal of Medical Ethics 30: 510–512.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holm, Soren. 1998. Ethical issues in pre-implantation diagnosis. In The future of human reproduction: Choice and regulation, ed. John Harris, and Soren Holm, 176–190. Oxford: OUP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. 2004. Revised pre-implantation testing guidance. http://www.hfea.gov.uk/2677.html. Accessed 30 September 2009.

  • Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. 2007. Hybrids and chimeras: A report on the findings of the consultation. http://www.hfea.gov.uk/docs/Hybrids_Report.pdf. Accessed 29 September 2009.

  • Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. 2009. Code of practice, 8th ed. London: HFEA.

    Google Scholar 

  • House of Commons Science and Technology Committee. 2002. Developments in human genetics and embryology: Fourth report of session 2001–2, HC 791. London: HMSO.

    Google Scholar 

  • House of Commons Science and Technology Committee. 2005. Human reproductive technologies and the law: Fifth report of session 2004–5, Vol 1, HC 7–1. London: HMSO.

    Google Scholar 

  • House of Lords, House of Commons, Joint Committee on the Human Tissue and Embryos (Draft) Bill. 2007. Report on the Human Tissue and Embryos (Draft) Bill: Session 2006–7, Vol 1, HL Paper 169-I, HC Paper 630-I. London: TSO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, Emily. 2002. Conception and the irrelevance of the welfare principle. Modern Law Review 65: 176–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, Emily. 2008. The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill. Expert Review of Obstetrics & Gynecology 3: 429–432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, Caroline. 2009a. Exploring the routes from consultation to (in]forming public policy. In Law and bioethics, ed. Michael Freeman, 257–285. Oxford: OUP (forthcoming).

  • Jones, Caroline. 2009b. The identification of ‘parents’ and ‘siblings’: New possibilities under the reformed Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act. In Rights, gender and family law, ed. Julie Wallbank, Shazia Choudhry, and Jonathan Herring. Abingdon: Routledge-Cavendish.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karpin, Isabel. 2006. The uncanny embryos: Legal limits to the human and reproduction without women. Sydney Law Review 28: 599–623.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, Robert, and Derek Morgan. 2001. Human fertilisation and embryology: Regulating the reproductive revolution. London: Blackstone Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCandless, Julie, and Sally, Sheldon. 2010. The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 and the tenacity of the sexual family form. Modern Law Review 73 (forthcoming).

  • Miola, Jose. 2004. Mix-ups, mistake and moral judgement: Recent developments in UK law on assisted conception. Feminist Legal Studies 12: 66–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pattinson, Shaun. 2009. Medical law and ethics, 2nd ed. London: Sweet & Maxwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, Rosamund. 2006. Choosing between possible lives: Legal and ethical issues in preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 26: 153–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sheldon, Sally. 2009. A missed opportunity to reform an outdated law. Clinical Ethics 4: 3–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, Charis. 2005. Making parents: The ontological choreography of reproductive technologies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomson, Michael. 1997. Legislating for the monstrous: Access to reproductive services and the monstrous feminine. Social and Legal Studies 6: 401–424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wallbank, Julie. 2002. Too many mothers? Surrogacy, kinship and the welfare of the child. Medical Law Review 10: 271–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wallbank, Julie. 2004. The role of rights and utility in instituting a child’s right to know her genetic history. Social and Legal Studies 13: 245–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Warnock, Mary. 1984. Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Human Fertilisation and Embryology, Cm 9314. London: HMSO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wertz, Dorothy C., and John C. Fletcher. 1998. Ethical and social issues in prenatal sex selection: A survey of geneticists in 27 nations. Social Science and Medicine 46: 255–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilkinson, Stephen. 2008. Sexism, sex selection and ‘family balancing’. Medical Law Review 16: 369–389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williamson, Laura, Marie Fox, and Sheila McLean. 2007. The regulation of xenotransplantation in the United Kingdom after UKXIRA: Legal and ethical issues. Journal of Law and Society 34: 441–464.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank Ed Bailey, Julie McCandless and Jean McHale who have all influenced my thinking on this legislation.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marie Fox.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Fox, M. The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008: Tinkering at the Margins. Fem Leg Stud 17, 333–344 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10691-009-9129-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10691-009-9129-2

Keywords

Navigation