1. Reproductive Technologies and the Birth of the HFEA 2. Ethics, Embryos, and Infertility 3. Sav... more 1. Reproductive Technologies and the Birth of the HFEA 2. Ethics, Embryos, and Infertility 3. Saviour Siblings, Designer Babies, and Sex Selection 4. Fertility is a Feminist Issue 5. Private Lives and Public Policy: The Story of Diane Blood 6. Human Rights and Reproduction 7. Deconstructing the Family: The Welfare of the Child Clause 8. Embryonic Stem Cells and Therapeutic Cloning
It is an honor in more ways than one to have been invited to give the 49 Lionel Cohen Lecture. As... more It is an honor in more ways than one to have been invited to give the 49 Lionel Cohen Lecture. As a law student and then a legal academic, I never could have imagined that I would be asked to follow in the footsteps of some of the greatest names in English law, ranging from Glanville Williams to David Daube, from Arthur Goodhart to Lord Woolf, men (and occasionally women) who bridged the traditions of common law and religious law and whose insights dissolved the thousands of miles between Britain and Israel.
IN July 1968 a new Canadian Divorce Act1 took effect, the first major change in the divorce law i... more IN July 1968 a new Canadian Divorce Act1 took effect, the first major change in the divorce law in that country for a century. Canadian society is comparable to English society in its attitudes to marriage and divorce and because the thinking behind the reports which preceded the new Divorce Acts in both countries is similar, it may be of interest to examine the working of the Canadian Act in its first two years of existence for indications of what may occur now that the English Divorce Reform Act has been brought into operation.2 Those who believed that English divorce law was urgently in need of change before the Divorce Reform Act of 1969 will find it easy to sympathise with Canadians for, in a society similar to ours and with the same tendency to breakdown of marriages, the only ground for divorce in eight of the ten provinces was a d~l t e r y .~ The courts of Quebec (with approximately one-quarter of the population of Canada) and Newfoundland were unable to grant divorces a t all and, consequently, divorce by Act of Parliament had to be provided for the residents of those two provinces. In 19G6 a Special Joint Committee of the Senate and of the House of Commons was established. The Committee was strongly influenced by two reports which had recently been issued in England: Putting Asunder and the divorce report by the Law Commission, Reform of the Grounds of Divorce: The Field of C h~i c e .~ I n coming to its conclusions, the Canadian Committee assumed the same background and the same opinions concerning marriage as had the Law Commission. The Report, however, favoured a combination of 1
IN July 1968 a new Canadian Divorce Act1 took effect, the first major change in the divorce law i... more IN July 1968 a new Canadian Divorce Act1 took effect, the first major change in the divorce law in that country for a century. Canadian society is comparable to English society in its attitudes to marriage and divorce and because the thinking behind the reports which preceded the new Divorce Acts in both countries is similar, it may be of interest to examine the working of the Canadian Act in its first two years of existence for indications of what may occur now that the English Divorce Reform Act has been brought into operation.2 Those who believed that English divorce law was urgently in need of change before the Divorce Reform Act of 1969 will find it easy to sympathise with Canadians for, in a society similar to ours and with the same tendency to breakdown of marriages, the only ground for divorce in eight of the ten provinces was a d~l t e r y .~ The courts of Quebec (with approximately one-quarter of the population of Canada) and Newfoundland were unable to grant divorces a t all and, consequently, divorce by Act of Parliament had to be provided for the residents of those two provinces. In 19G6 a Special Joint Committee of the Senate and of the House of Commons was established. The Committee was strongly influenced by two reports which had recently been issued in England: Putting Asunder and the divorce report by the Law Commission, Reform of the Grounds of Divorce: The Field of C h~i c e .~ I n coming to its conclusions, the Canadian Committee assumed the same background and the same opinions concerning marriage as had the Law Commission. The Report, however, favoured a combination of 1
Public reaction to breakthroughs in fertility treatment and embryo research tends to be extremely... more Public reaction to breakthroughs in fertility treatment and embryo research tends to be extremely mixed, revealing an often ambivalent attitude to science itself. After 12 years of intense public debate about the ethics of IVF and human embryo research, Parliament passed the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990, which established the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA). The aims of the HFEA are to regulate licensed clinics in a rigorous but sensitive way; to protect patients who may be vulnerable to exploitation, whether intended or inadvertent; to enable this sensitive area of science and medicine to progress in a responsible way; and to reassure the public that the possible excesses are guarded against. The HFEA is an arbiter over several balancing acts: especially the balance between the practitioner's right to clinical freedom and scientific progress against protection of patients, future offspring and the limits of public acceptability; or the right of access to treatment against the need to maintain acceptability, respectability and safety. In the last 8 years several issues have arisen that challenge society's view of what is 'normal' or 'acceptable' in human reproduction, and this will undoubtedly continue to happen in the future. These issues have been difficult for society to accommodate, and have presented serious challenges to conventional ideas. However, the HFEA has been able to assure both public and legislators that clinics are acting reasonably and that there are adequate controls in place.
1. Reproductive Technologies and the Birth of the HFEA 2. Ethics, Embryos, and Infertility 3. Sav... more 1. Reproductive Technologies and the Birth of the HFEA 2. Ethics, Embryos, and Infertility 3. Saviour Siblings, Designer Babies, and Sex Selection 4. Fertility is a Feminist Issue 5. Private Lives and Public Policy: The Story of Diane Blood 6. Human Rights and Reproduction 7. Deconstructing the Family: The Welfare of the Child Clause 8. Embryonic Stem Cells and Therapeutic Cloning
It is an honor in more ways than one to have been invited to give the 49 Lionel Cohen Lecture. As... more It is an honor in more ways than one to have been invited to give the 49 Lionel Cohen Lecture. As a law student and then a legal academic, I never could have imagined that I would be asked to follow in the footsteps of some of the greatest names in English law, ranging from Glanville Williams to David Daube, from Arthur Goodhart to Lord Woolf, men (and occasionally women) who bridged the traditions of common law and religious law and whose insights dissolved the thousands of miles between Britain and Israel.
IN July 1968 a new Canadian Divorce Act1 took effect, the first major change in the divorce law i... more IN July 1968 a new Canadian Divorce Act1 took effect, the first major change in the divorce law in that country for a century. Canadian society is comparable to English society in its attitudes to marriage and divorce and because the thinking behind the reports which preceded the new Divorce Acts in both countries is similar, it may be of interest to examine the working of the Canadian Act in its first two years of existence for indications of what may occur now that the English Divorce Reform Act has been brought into operation.2 Those who believed that English divorce law was urgently in need of change before the Divorce Reform Act of 1969 will find it easy to sympathise with Canadians for, in a society similar to ours and with the same tendency to breakdown of marriages, the only ground for divorce in eight of the ten provinces was a d~l t e r y .~ The courts of Quebec (with approximately one-quarter of the population of Canada) and Newfoundland were unable to grant divorces a t all and, consequently, divorce by Act of Parliament had to be provided for the residents of those two provinces. In 19G6 a Special Joint Committee of the Senate and of the House of Commons was established. The Committee was strongly influenced by two reports which had recently been issued in England: Putting Asunder and the divorce report by the Law Commission, Reform of the Grounds of Divorce: The Field of C h~i c e .~ I n coming to its conclusions, the Canadian Committee assumed the same background and the same opinions concerning marriage as had the Law Commission. The Report, however, favoured a combination of 1
IN July 1968 a new Canadian Divorce Act1 took effect, the first major change in the divorce law i... more IN July 1968 a new Canadian Divorce Act1 took effect, the first major change in the divorce law in that country for a century. Canadian society is comparable to English society in its attitudes to marriage and divorce and because the thinking behind the reports which preceded the new Divorce Acts in both countries is similar, it may be of interest to examine the working of the Canadian Act in its first two years of existence for indications of what may occur now that the English Divorce Reform Act has been brought into operation.2 Those who believed that English divorce law was urgently in need of change before the Divorce Reform Act of 1969 will find it easy to sympathise with Canadians for, in a society similar to ours and with the same tendency to breakdown of marriages, the only ground for divorce in eight of the ten provinces was a d~l t e r y .~ The courts of Quebec (with approximately one-quarter of the population of Canada) and Newfoundland were unable to grant divorces a t all and, consequently, divorce by Act of Parliament had to be provided for the residents of those two provinces. In 19G6 a Special Joint Committee of the Senate and of the House of Commons was established. The Committee was strongly influenced by two reports which had recently been issued in England: Putting Asunder and the divorce report by the Law Commission, Reform of the Grounds of Divorce: The Field of C h~i c e .~ I n coming to its conclusions, the Canadian Committee assumed the same background and the same opinions concerning marriage as had the Law Commission. The Report, however, favoured a combination of 1
Public reaction to breakthroughs in fertility treatment and embryo research tends to be extremely... more Public reaction to breakthroughs in fertility treatment and embryo research tends to be extremely mixed, revealing an often ambivalent attitude to science itself. After 12 years of intense public debate about the ethics of IVF and human embryo research, Parliament passed the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990, which established the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA). The aims of the HFEA are to regulate licensed clinics in a rigorous but sensitive way; to protect patients who may be vulnerable to exploitation, whether intended or inadvertent; to enable this sensitive area of science and medicine to progress in a responsible way; and to reassure the public that the possible excesses are guarded against. The HFEA is an arbiter over several balancing acts: especially the balance between the practitioner's right to clinical freedom and scientific progress against protection of patients, future offspring and the limits of public acceptability; or the right of access to treatment against the need to maintain acceptability, respectability and safety. In the last 8 years several issues have arisen that challenge society's view of what is 'normal' or 'acceptable' in human reproduction, and this will undoubtedly continue to happen in the future. These issues have been difficult for society to accommodate, and have presented serious challenges to conventional ideas. However, the HFEA has been able to assure both public and legislators that clinics are acting reasonably and that there are adequate controls in place.
Uploads
Papers by Ruth Deech