• Login
    JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.
    Wrongful life claims and negligent selection of gametes or embryos in infertility treatments: a quest for coherence. 
    •   QMRO Home
    • School of Law
    • Department of Law
    • Wrongful life claims and negligent selection of gametes or embryos in infertility treatments: a quest for coherence.
    •   QMRO Home
    • School of Law
    • Department of Law
    • Wrongful life claims and negligent selection of gametes or embryos in infertility treatments: a quest for coherence.
    ‌
    ‌

    Browse

    All of QMROCommunities & CollectionsBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesSubjectsThis CollectionBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesSubjects
    ‌
    ‌

    Administrators only

    Login
    ‌
    ‌

    Statistics

    Most Popular ItemsStatistics by CountryMost Popular Authors

    Wrongful life claims and negligent selection of gametes or embryos in infertility treatments: a quest for coherence.

    View/Open
    Gur Wrongful life claims and negligent selection of gametes or embryos in infertility treatments 2014 Accepted.pdf (349.6Kb)
    Volume
    22
    Pagination
    426 - 441
    Journal
    J Law Med
    Issue
    2
    ISSN
    1320-159X
    Metadata
    Show full item record
    Abstract
    This article discusses an anomaly in the English law of reproductive liability: that is, an inconsistency between the law's approach to wrongful life claims and its approach to cases of negligent selection of gametes or embryos in infertility treatments (the selection cases). The article begins with an account of the legal position, which brings into view the relevant inconsistency: while the law treats wrongful life claims as non-actionable, it recognises a cause of action in the selection cases, although the selection cases bear a relevant resemblance to wrongful life claims. The article then considers arguments that may be invoked in an attempt to reconcile the above two strands of the law. Three of these counterarguments consist in attempts to distinguish the selection cases from wrongful life claims. It is argued that these attempts fail to reveal a valid basis for treating these situations differently. A fourth possible counterargument levels against the present analysis a charge of reductio ad absurdum. It is shown that this argument suffers from a fundamental flaw caused by confusion between different senses of the term "identity". Finally, the article discusses possible changes to the legal position that could rectify the problem. It argues that one of these changes, which focuses on legal redress for violation of personal autonomy, is particularly apt to resolve the problem at hand, but also highlights the need for further inquiry into the broader implications of introducing this form of redress into the law of torts.
    Authors
    Gur, N
    URI
    http://qmro.qmul.ac.uk/xmlui/handle/123456789/11378
    Collections
    • Department of Law [647]
    Language
    eng
    Copyright statements
    (c) 2014 Thomas Reuters
    Twitter iconFollow QMUL on Twitter
    Twitter iconFollow QM Research
    Online on twitter
    Facebook iconLike us on Facebook
    • Site Map
    • Privacy and cookies
    • Disclaimer
    • Accessibility
    • Contacts
    • Intranet
    • Current students

    Modern Slavery Statement

    Queen Mary University of London
    Mile End Road
    London E1 4NS
    Tel: +44 (0)20 7882 5555

    © Queen Mary University of London.