The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 and Non‐Traditional Families

IF 1.5 4区 社会学 Q1 LAW Modern Law Review Pub Date : 2023-05-30 DOI:10.1111/1468-2230.12818
Kirsty Horsey, Emily Jackson
{"title":"The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 and Non‐Traditional Families","authors":"Kirsty Horsey, Emily Jackson","doi":"10.1111/1468-2230.12818","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"There is now a broad consensus that reform of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990, as amended, has become necessary. Our focus in this legislation article is not on whether the Act needs to be reformed, but on the narrower question of whether the regulation of fertility treatment in the UK does enough to protect the interests of non‐traditional families. The 2008 reforms to the original 1990 Act took some important steps towards inclusivity, for example by deleting the requirement that clinics consider the child's ‘need for a father’ before providing treatment, and enabling two women to be a child's legal parents from birth. Our contention here is that any new legislation should go further in order to recognise and accommodate diverse family forms.","PeriodicalId":47530,"journal":{"name":"Modern Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Modern Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2230.12818","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

There is now a broad consensus that reform of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990, as amended, has become necessary. Our focus in this legislation article is not on whether the Act needs to be reformed, but on the narrower question of whether the regulation of fertility treatment in the UK does enough to protect the interests of non‐traditional families. The 2008 reforms to the original 1990 Act took some important steps towards inclusivity, for example by deleting the requirement that clinics consider the child's ‘need for a father’ before providing treatment, and enabling two women to be a child's legal parents from birth. Our contention here is that any new legislation should go further in order to recognise and accommodate diverse family forms.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
1990年《人类受精与胚胎法》和非传统家庭
现在有一个广泛的共识,即修订后的《1990年人类受精与胚胎法》的改革是必要的。在这篇立法文章中,我们关注的重点不是该法案是否需要改革,而是更狭隘的问题,即英国对生育治疗的监管是否足以保护非传统家庭的利益。2008年对原1990年法案的改革在包容性方面采取了一些重要步骤,例如,删除了诊所在提供治疗之前必须考虑孩子“需要父亲”的要求,并允许两名妇女从出生起就成为孩子的合法父母。我们的论点是,任何新的立法都应该更进一步,以承认和适应不同的家庭形式。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
61
期刊最新文献
Using AI to Mitigate the Employee Misclassification Problem StinePiilgaardPorner Nielsen and OleHammerslev (eds), Transformations of European Welfare States and Social Rights: Regulation, Professionals, and Citizens, Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, 2024, x + 226, pb £34.99 and open access Performative Environmental Law Thinking Legally about Remedy in Judicial Review: R (on the application of Imam) v London Borough of Croydon Legal Parenthood, Novel Reproductive Practices, and the Disruption of Reproductive Biosex
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1