title: More questions than answers? R v Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority ex parte Blood The Times 7th February 1997.
abstract: The recent Court of Appeal decision in R v Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority ex parte Blood (1997), was an attempt to reconcile media driven support for a widow's desire to have a child using sperm obtained from her comatose husband immediately prior to his death. The Court of Appeal held that the written consent of the husband had not been obtained in respect to the storage of his sperm and this was contrary to the requirements of the Human Embryology and Fertilisation Act 1990. However in the present case it was right that once the sperm had been removed, it was preserved and stored pending a ruling as there appeared to be some uncertainty surrounding the situation. The Court also held that the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority had failed to exercise its discretion correctly in refusing to give Mrs Blood permission to export the sperm to Belgium where the written consent of the donor to storage of gametes is not required. The Court of Appeal stated that there was no question of a precedent being set as this was a unique situation which should not arise again in the future.
authors.affiliation: Sheffield Hallam University, UK.
authors.forename: S J
authors.initials: SJ
authors.lastname: Treece
authors.forename: D
authors.initials: D
authors.lastname: Savas
mesh_terms: D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D007258:Informed Consent / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D007317:Insemination, Artificial, Homologous; D007883:Legislation, Medical; D008297:Male; D037022:Posthumous Conception / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D012661:Semen; D014019:Tissue Donors / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D006113:United Kingdom; D017805:Widowhood