{"title":"R (on the application of Quintavalle) v Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority.","authors":"","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":82910,"journal":{"name":"The all England law reports","volume":"2 ","pages":"555-70"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2005-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"26366052","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Evans v. Amicus Healthcare Ltd; Hadley v. Midland Fertility Ltd.","authors":"","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":82910,"journal":{"name":"The all England law reports","volume":"4 ","pages":"903-68"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2003-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"26350740","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"R (on the application of Quintavalle) v Secretary of State for Health.","authors":"","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":82910,"journal":{"name":"The all England law reports","volume":"2 ","pages":"113-30"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2003-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"26366050","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"R (on the application of Quintavalle) v Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority.","authors":"","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":82910,"journal":{"name":"The all England law reports","volume":"2 ","pages":"105-12"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2003-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"26272631","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Re R (a Child).","authors":"","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":82910,"journal":{"name":"The all England law reports","volume":"2 ","pages":"131-40"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2003-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"26350743","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"R (On the application of Quintavalle) v Secretary of State for Health.","authors":"","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":82910,"journal":{"name":"The all England law reports","volume":"2 ","pages":"625-39"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2002-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"26366053","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"R (On the application of Quintavalle) v Secretary of State for Health.","authors":"","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":82910,"journal":{"name":"The all England law reports","volume":"4 ","pages":"1013-24"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2001-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"26272630","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2001-01-01DOI: 10.1007/978-3-211-77512-7_19
E. Bernat
{"title":"R (On the application of Quintavalle) v Secretary of State for Health.","authors":"E. Bernat","doi":"10.1007/978-3-211-77512-7_19","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-211-77512-7_19","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":82910,"journal":{"name":"The all England law reports","volume":"53 7","pages":"1013-24"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2001-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50998889","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Re A (Children) (Conjoined Twins: Surgical Separation).","authors":"","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":82910,"journal":{"name":"The all England law reports","volume":"4 ","pages":"961-1070"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2000-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"24457183","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1997-01-01DOI: 10.1163/15718099720522011
Douglas
England's Court of Appeal, Civil Division, upheld the lower court decision that, without the necessary written consent of the deceased husband, the 1990 Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act prohibits the storage of his cryopreserved sperm and its use in artificial insemination by the widow. When doctors retrieved sperm from Stephen Blood, he was already comatose from meningitis and would die soon thereafter. His widow sought release of the sperm to her for posthumous conception. Without the actual existence of a written consent for cryopreservation and also for disposition upon death, both storage of the sperm and its later use are prohibited under the licensing statute. The court did not address common law issues concerning consent to the retrieval of sperm from an unconscious man because those issues were not argued. In dicta (nonbinding opinion), the court noted that written consent is not required under the statute in a case involving fresh, i.e., nonpreserved, sperm where the donor later dies. The court did uphold the right to appeal the licensing authority's refusal to authorize the widow's export of the sperm for insemination at a medical clinic in another state of the European Community, such as Belgium, as infringing on her right to treatment under Community law.
{"title":"R v. Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, ex parte Blood.","authors":"Douglas","doi":"10.1163/15718099720522011","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15718099720522011","url":null,"abstract":"England's Court of Appeal, Civil Division, upheld the lower court decision that, without the necessary written consent of the deceased husband, the 1990 Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act prohibits the storage of his cryopreserved sperm and its use in artificial insemination by the widow. When doctors retrieved sperm from Stephen Blood, he was already comatose from meningitis and would die soon thereafter. His widow sought release of the sperm to her for posthumous conception. Without the actual existence of a written consent for cryopreservation and also for disposition upon death, both storage of the sperm and its later use are prohibited under the licensing statute. The court did not address common law issues concerning consent to the retrieval of sperm from an unconscious man because those issues were not argued. In dicta (nonbinding opinion), the court noted that written consent is not required under the statute in a case involving fresh, i.e., nonpreserved, sperm where the donor later dies. The court did uphold the right to appeal the licensing authority's refusal to authorize the widow's export of the sperm for insemination at a medical clinic in another state of the European Community, such as Belgium, as infringing on her right to treatment under Community law.","PeriodicalId":82910,"journal":{"name":"The all England law reports","volume":"327 1","pages":"687-704"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1997-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1163/15718099720522011","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"65053278","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：