header-logo header-logo

05 July 2007 / Fiona Dabell , Rachel Anne Fenton
Issue: 7280 / Categories: Features , Human rights
printer mail-detail

Time for change (2)

The power of interest groups to force change is apparent in proposals leading up to the Human Tissue and Embryos (Draft) Bill, say Rachel Fenton and Fiona Dabell

In March 2005 the House of Commons Science and Technology Select Committee published its review of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 (HFEA 1990), which was branded as “ultra-libertarian” by critics and signed by only half the MPs. Among its recommendations were: sex selection for family balancing should be allowed; hybrid and chimera embryos should be permitted to be created for research purposes; and the absolute ban on genetic modification of the pre-14 day embryo should be lifted. Significantly, it recommended that the “welfare of the child” provision and in particular the “need for a father” under HFEA 1990, s 13(5) should be abolished in its current form on the grounds that it is “unjustifiably offensive” and “wrong for legislation to imply that unjustified discrimination against ‘unconventional families’ is acceptable”.

In 2005 the Department of Health (DoH) launched a public consultation for

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