Skip Navigation



Hum. Reprod. Advance Access published online on June 30, 2006
Human Reproduction, doi:10.1093/humrep/del248
This Article
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF ) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
21/11/2756    most recent
del248v1
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 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 arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Johnson, M. H.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Johnson, M. H.
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

Escaping the tyranny of the embryo? A new approach to ART regulation based on UK and Australian experiences

Martin H. Johnson 1 *

1 Department of Anatomy, University of Cambridge, Downing Street, Cambridge, UK

* To whom correspondence should be addressed.
Martin H. Johnson, E-mail: mhj21{at}cam.ac.uk


  Abstract

The early legislative responses to fertilization of human oocytes in vitro exaggerated the protection of the embryo at the expense of the interests of other parties. Although more recent legislative changes have lessened this embryonic grip, it nonetheless still distorts legal thinking and is fundamentally in conflict with biological understanding. Drawing largely on experiences in the UK and Australia, a proposal is explored that reframes the legislative approach to the regulation of assisted reproductive technology (ART) with the following objectives: (i) to align more closely the legal and biological understandings of the earliest stages of human development; (ii) to place the legislative focus on objective, intent and outcome; and in the process (iii) to disentangle legally and conceptually the status of the embryo from that of the potential child. Experiences in the UK and Australia are drawn on, because these two jurisdictions have a common legal heritage and were among the earliest players both scientifically and legally but have pursued very different legal routes to their current legislative practices.

Keywords: ART/embryo/legislation/regulation.
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]

Home page
 The Obstetrician and GynaecologistHome page
T. El-Toukhy, C. Williams, and P. Braude
The ethics of preimplantation genetic diagnosis
Obstet Gynaecol (Lond), January 1, 2008; 10(1): 49 - 54.
[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.