header-logo header-logo

15 January 2009
Issue: 7352 / Categories: Features , Public , Human rights
printer mail-detail

Life after death

Seamus Burns discusses the grey areas of law and ethics surrounding donor consent

Tragically, in June 2007 H, (who was married to L and had a 10-month old daughter), died unexpectedly in hospital after an appendectomy. The couple had not had any discussions as to what should happen if H (aged only 31) died in hospital. H’s death came as a hammer-blow to L, and as Mr Justice Charles in L v The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority [2008] EWHC 2149 (Fam) said “…the steps that she took in its immediate aftermath were motivated by the wishes of herself and her husband to have another child, her wish to have another child who by blood would be a full sibling to her existing child and time to think about whether she should pursue that course”. Clearly L had to act immediately and decisively to retrieve and preserve H’s sperm. Thus, she made an out of hours application to Mrs Justice Macur, for declaratory relief on 26/6/2007.

The hospital, but not the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority

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

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
In this week’s NLJ, Fred Philpott, Gough Square Chambers, invites us to imagine there was no statutory limitation. What would that world be like?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
back-to-top-scroll