header-logo header-logo

05 October 2012 / Barbara Hewson
Issue: 7532 / Categories: Features , Professional negligence , Mental health
printer mail-detail

A consistent approach

Barbara Hewson highlights some recent trends in reproductive rights

On 28 August 2012, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) published an interesting decision on Italy’s law on artificial insemination. The case, Costa v Italy (App No 54270/10), is striking: first, because it is a unanimous ruling in a sensitive area and, second, because of its trenchant distinction between the status of a “child” and an “embryo”.

The applicants are a couple who are healthy carriers of cystic fibrosis. They first discovered their status, after they had a daughter in 2006, who was diagnosed with the disease. Understandably, the couple were anxious to avoid having further children similarly afflicted. When Ms Costa became pregnant again in 2012, she underwent antenatal screening and the baby was diagnosed with cystic fibrosis. The couple decided to terminate that pregnancy. They then sought to have a baby by “in vitro fertilisation” (IVF), but wanted to have the embryo genetically screened prior to implantation. This is called “pre-implantation diagnosis” (PID).

Interference

Italian law prohibits PID,

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Bellevue Law—Lianne Craig

Bellevue Law—Lianne Craig

Workplace law firm expands commercial disputes team with senior consultant hire

EIP—Rob Barker

EIP—Rob Barker

IP firm promotes patent attorney to partner

Muckle LLP—Ryan Butler

Muckle LLP—Ryan Butler

Banking and restructuring team bolstered by insolvency specialist

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll