Feminist Legal Studies

, Volume 17, Issue 3, pp 333–344 | Cite as

The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008: Tinkering at the Margins

  • Marie Fox
Legislative Note


This note suggests that, viewed from a feminist perspective, the reforms contained in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 represent a missed opportunity to re-think the appropriate model of regulation to govern fertility treatment and embryology research in the UK. It argues that reform of the legislation was driven largely by the government’s desire to avoid re-igniting controversies over the legal status of the embryo and abortion and to maintain Britain’s position at the forefront of embryo research and related biotechnologies. It also highlights the importance of media debates, which were highly selective, to the reform process, and suggests that in order to inject feminist values into the process of legislative reform, feminists need to become more media savvy. In the short term, it suggests that there is little prospect of a radical re-thinking of the appropriate ethico-legal response to the wide variety of family forms that reproductive technologies potentially enable, much less of considering our ethical obligations to the new forms of embryos that are now permitted by the 2008 Act. In the meantime, however, it argues that these issues provide productive opportunities for feminist legal theorists to address questions that have been erased or obscured in the course of the 2008 reforms.


Embryo research Feminist strategy Legislative reform Parenthood Reproduction 



I would like to thank Ed Bailey, Julie McCandless and Jean McHale who have all influenced my thinking on this legislation.


  1. Blackstock, Colin. 2004. No need for fathers in IVF treatment says fertility chief. The Guardian, February 21.Google Scholar
  2. Brazier, Margaret. 1999. Liberty, responsibility, maternity. Current Legal Problems 52: 359–391.Google Scholar
  3. Brazier, Margaret. 2009. Being human: Of liberty and privilege. In The legal, medical and cultural regulation of the body: Transformation and transgression, ed. Stephen Smith, and Ronan Deazley, 1–14. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  4. Brazier, Margaret, and Emma Cave. 2007. Medicine, patients and the law, 4th ed. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  5. Burrell, Riitta. 2005. Feminist views on sex selection. In Preimplantation genetic diagnosis and embryo selection, ed. Ingileif Jónsdóttir, 143–157. Copenhagen: TemaNord.Google Scholar
  6. Department of Health. 2000. Government response to the recommendations made in the Chief Medical Officer’s expert group report, Cm 4833. Norwich: HMSO.Google Scholar
  7. Department of Health. 2005. Review of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act: A public consultation. London: Department of Health.Google Scholar
  8. Department of Health. 2006. Review of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act: Proposals for revised legislation (including the establishment of the Regulatory Authority for Tissue and Embryos), Cm 6989. Norwich: HMSO.Google Scholar
  9. Department of Health. 2007a. Government response to the report from the Joint Committee on the Human Tissue and Embryos (Draft) Bill, Cm 7209. Norwich: HMSO.Google Scholar
  10. Department of Health. 2007b. Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2007: An illustrative text. Accessed 29 September 2009.
  11. Ford, Mary. 2009. Nothing and not-nothing: Law’s ambivalent response to transformation and transgression at the beginning of life. In The legal, medical and cultural regulation of the body: Transformation and transgression, ed. Stephen Smith, and Ronan Deazley, 21–47. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  12. Fox, Marie. 2006. Exposing harm: The erasure of animal bodies in health care law. In First do no harm: Law, ethics and healthcare, ed. Sheila McLean, 543–561. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  13. Fox, Marie. 2009. Legislating interspecies embryos. In The legal, medical and cultural regulation of the body: Transformation and transgression, ed. Stephen Smith, and Ronan Deazley, 95–126. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  14. Franklin, Sarah. 2006. The cyborg embryo: Our path to transbiology. Theory, Culture Society 23: 167–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Freeman, Michael. 2004. Medically assisted reproduction. In Principles of medical law, ed. Andrew Grubb, 639–738. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
  16. Häyry, Matti. 2004. There is a difference between selecting a deaf embryo and deafening a hearing child. Journal of Medical Ethics 30: 510–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Holm, Soren. 1998. Ethical issues in pre-implantation diagnosis. In The future of human reproduction: Choice and regulation, ed. John Harris, and Soren Holm, 176–190. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
  18. Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. 2004. Revised pre-implantation testing guidance. Accessed 30 September 2009.
  19. Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. 2007. Hybrids and chimeras: A report on the findings of the consultation. Accessed 29 September 2009.
  20. Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. 2009. Code of practice, 8th ed. London: HFEA.Google Scholar
  21. House of Commons Science and Technology Committee. 2002. Developments in human genetics and embryology: Fourth report of session 2001–2, HC 791. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
  22. House of Commons Science and Technology Committee. 2005. Human reproductive technologies and the law: Fifth report of session 2004–5, Vol 1, HC 7–1. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
  23. House of Lords, House of Commons, Joint Committee on the Human Tissue and Embryos (Draft) Bill. 2007. Report on the Human Tissue and Embryos (Draft) Bill: Session 2006–7, Vol 1, HL Paper 169-I, HC Paper 630-I. London: TSO.Google Scholar
  24. Jackson, Emily. 2002. Conception and the irrelevance of the welfare principle. Modern Law Review 65: 176–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jackson, Emily. 2008. The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill. Expert Review of Obstetrics & Gynecology 3: 429–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jones, Caroline. 2009a. Exploring the routes from consultation to (in]forming public policy. In Law and bioethics, ed. Michael Freeman, 257–285. Oxford: OUP (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  27. Jones, Caroline. 2009b. The identification of ‘parents’ and ‘siblings’: New possibilities under the reformed Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act. In Rights, gender and family law, ed. Julie Wallbank, Shazia Choudhry, and Jonathan Herring. Abingdon: Routledge-Cavendish.Google Scholar
  28. Karpin, Isabel. 2006. The uncanny embryos: Legal limits to the human and reproduction without women. Sydney Law Review 28: 599–623.Google Scholar
  29. Lee, Robert, and Derek Morgan. 2001. Human fertilisation and embryology: Regulating the reproductive revolution. London: Blackstone Press.Google Scholar
  30. McCandless, Julie, and Sally, Sheldon. 2010. The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 and the tenacity of the sexual family form. Modern Law Review 73 (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  31. Miola, Jose. 2004. Mix-ups, mistake and moral judgement: Recent developments in UK law on assisted conception. Feminist Legal Studies 12: 66–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Pattinson, Shaun. 2009. Medical law and ethics, 2nd ed. London: Sweet & Maxwell.Google Scholar
  33. Scott, Rosamund. 2006. Choosing between possible lives: Legal and ethical issues in preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 26: 153–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sheldon, Sally. 2009. A missed opportunity to reform an outdated law. Clinical Ethics 4: 3–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Thompson, Charis. 2005. Making parents: The ontological choreography of reproductive technologies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  36. Thomson, Michael. 1997. Legislating for the monstrous: Access to reproductive services and the monstrous feminine. Social and Legal Studies 6: 401–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wallbank, Julie. 2002. Too many mothers? Surrogacy, kinship and the welfare of the child. Medical Law Review 10: 271–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wallbank, Julie. 2004. The role of rights and utility in instituting a child’s right to know her genetic history. Social and Legal Studies 13: 245–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Warnock, Mary. 1984. Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Human Fertilisation and Embryology, Cm 9314. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
  40. Wertz, Dorothy C., and John C. Fletcher. 1998. Ethical and social issues in prenatal sex selection: A survey of geneticists in 27 nations. Social Science and Medicine 46: 255–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Wilkinson, Stephen. 2008. Sexism, sex selection and ‘family balancing’. Medical Law Review 16: 369–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Williamson, Laura, Marie Fox, and Sheila McLean. 2007. The regulation of xenotransplantation in the United Kingdom after UKXIRA: Legal and ethical issues. Journal of Law and Society 34: 441–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of LawKeele UniversityStaffordshireUK

Personalised recommendations