Skip Navigation


Hum. Reprod. Advance Access originally published online on August 2, 2006
Human Reproduction 2006 21(12):3044-3049; doi:10.1093/humrep/del308
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF ) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
21/12/3044    most recent
del308v1
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (2)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by English, V.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by English, V.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2006. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

OPINION

Autonomy versus protection—who benefits from the regulation of IVF?*

Veronica English

Deputy Head of Medical Ethics, British Medical Association, BMA House, Tavistock Square, London WC1H 9JP

E-mail: venglish{at}bma.org.uk

Parliament will soon be asked to decide about the future regulation of IVF in the United Kingdom. Given that IVF is now considered to be a routine clinical procedure and the fact that we live in an age of unprecedented emphasis on autonomy and patient rights, the justification for continuing to regulate this form of treatment will undoubtedly be challenged. This article considers the four key reasons why the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) was originally established—to protect patients and their children, to allay public concerns, to protect scientific freedom and to protect IVF practitioners from claims of unethical behaviour—and asks to what extent these reasons are still valid today. Acknowledging that there are difficulties and frustrations with the HFEA, the article warns that all parties—patients, researchers, IVF practitioners and society—have a lot to lose by limiting the scope of regulation. It concludes that before moving too quickly to get rid of the HFEA as we know it, we need to think carefully about whether the burdens and restrictions imposed by regulation are sufficiently onerous to justify this loss.

Key words: HFEA/IVF/protection/regulation/reproductive autonomy

*The views expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the BMA.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Hum ReprodHome page
M. H. Johnson and K. Petersen
Public interest or public meddling? Towards an objective framework for the regulation of assisted reproduction technologies
Hum. Reprod., March 1, 2008; 23(3): 716 - 728.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.