header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
14 June 2007 / Rachel Anne Fenton
Issue: 7277 / Categories: Features , Human rights
printer mail-detail

Time for change (1)

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

In the first of two articles, Rachel Fenton and Fiona Dabell explain why the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act needs urgent review

The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 (HFEA 1990), which regulates assisted reproduction and embryo research, is under review. The issues decided by the government of 1990 were, and remain, controversial and it is unsurprising that there has been continued debate about their regulation. Contentious issues, such as posthumous pregnancy, so-called “saviour siblings”, cloning, and the withdrawal of consent to the use of embryos upon relationship breakdown have received much media attention and high profile legal challenges to HFEA 1990 have been mounted by interest groups. These have all contributed to the need to review the current legislation.

Following the birth of Louise Brown in 1978, a committee of inquiry led by philosopher Dame Mary Warnock was set up in 1982 to examine the ethical and legal implications of the new reproductive technologies that were becoming available. The committee reported in 1984 and HFEA 1990 was predicated upon its inherently libertarian

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

Read All
Sponsored by
Switalskis—Naila Arif, Harriet Findlay & Ellie Thompson

Switalskis—Naila Arif, Harriet Findlay & Ellie Thompson

Firm awards training contracts to paralegals through internal programme

Ward Hadaway—Matthew Morton

Ward Hadaway—Matthew Morton

Private client disputes specialist joins commercial litigation team

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Nina Hood

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Nina Hood

Cumbria firm appoints new head of residential property

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
NLJ this week: Family law urged to ditch adversarial instincts
Family law must shift from conflict-driven litigation to child-centred problem-solving, according to a major new report. Writing in NLJ this week, Caroline Bowden of Anthony Gold outlines findings showing overwhelming support for reform, with 92% agreeing lawyers owe duties to children as well as clients
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll