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

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts
back-to-top-scroll