Abstract
Legal attitudes to fetuses and newborns have varied over time, some cultures proscribing abortion and infanticide, some early codes giving the fetus indirect protection by prohibiting the striking of a woman so as to cause the death of her unborn child (Codes). In other cultures, abortion and infanticides were seen as acceptable resolutions of dilemmas posed by scarce resources, birth defects or sexual balance. Neither ancient Greek nor early Roman law forbade abortion, the latter not regarding the unborn child as a living human being. The common law has long drawn a fundamental distinction between the fetus and the child following birth. Recent developments in common law jurisprudence have, however, seen the recognition of interests — notice the importance of that term, interests, not rights — against harm to the child before its birth.
The question of control over genetic products and the limits to be imposed creates problems in terms of both application of existing legislation and principles of law, and respect for the fundamental principles and values of our society, in particular individual freedoms and human dignity. (Council of Europe, 1989)
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Brazier, M. (1988) ‘Embryos’ “Rights”: Abortion and Research’, in M. Freeman (ed.), Medicine, Ethics and the Law (London: Stevens) pp. 9–22.
Burton v. Islington Health Authority [1992] 3 All ER 833.
C v. S [1988] 1 QB 135.
Codes, of Sumerian 2000 BC, Assyrian 1500 BC, Hittite 1300 BC and Persian 600 BC.
Council of Europe (1989) Human Artificial Procreation, Strasbourg, The Council, 1989, p. 11.
Davis v. Davis [1989] 15 FLR 2097 (on appeal [1990] WL 130807 (Tenn CA)).
de Martell v. Merton and Sutton HA [1992] 3 All ER 820 and, on appeal [1992] 3 All ER 833.
DHSS (1984) Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Human Fertilisation and Embryology. Cm 9314 (London: HMSO).
Elliot v. Joicey 1935 SC (HL) 57.
Glover, J. (1989) Fertility and the Family: The Glover Report on Reproductive Technologies to the European Commission (London: Fourth Estate) p. 94.
Grubb, A. (1991) ‘The legal status of the frozen human embryo’, in A. Grubb (ed.), Challenges in Medical Care (Chichester: John Wiley) pp. 69–90.
Hailsham, Lord (1990) House of Lords, Hansard vol. 515 col. 750–1.
Hamilton v. Fife Health Board (1992) The Times January 28, 1992 (Outer House of the Court of Session) now under appeal.
Holmes, O. W. (1881) The Common Law (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press) p. 1.
Kennedy, I. and A. Grubb (1989) Medical Law: Text and Materials (London: Butterworths) p. 682.
Keown, J. (1989) ‘Creative Criminals’, paper presented at ‘Assisted Conception and the Law: A Medical/Legal Forum’ Royal Society of Medicine, London.
Louisiana (1986) Louisiana Revised Statutes 9, ss. 121–33.
LRCC (1992) Law Reform Commission of Canada, Medically Assisted Procreation, Working Paper no. 64, pp. 139–40.
McWilliams v. Ministry of Defence (1992) Lord Morton, Court of Session.
Missouri (1986) Missouri Revised Statutes ss. 1.205(1).
Morgan, D. M. and R. G. Lee (1990) Blackstone’s Guide to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 (London: Blackstones) pp. 63–88.
Morgan, D. M. and L. Nielsen (1992) ‘Dangerous Liaisons: Law, technology and European ethics — an Anglo-Danish comparison’, in S. McVeigh and S. Wheeler (eds), Medicine, Law and Regulation (London: Dartmouth Press) pp. 64–87.
Parpalaix v. CECOS, Trib. gr. inst. Creteil, 1 August 1984, Gaz. Pal., 1984.II.560.
Paton v. Trustees of the BPAS [1979] 1 QB 276.
Rance v. Mid Downs Health Authority [1991] 1 All ER 801.
Rawlinson, Lord (1990) House of Lords, Hansard, 8 February 1990, col. 953.
Re F (in utero) [1988] 2 All ER 193.
Rios [1985] ‘The Rios’ Embryo case’. See G. F. Smith (1985–6) ‘Australia’s frozen ‘orphan’ embryos: a medical, legal and ethical dilemma’, Journal of Family Law, vol. 24, pp. 27–45.
The George and the Richard [1871] LR 3 A & E 466.
Watt v. Rama [1972] VR 353, pp. 360–1.
Webster v. Reproductive Health Services [1989] 492 US 490.
Wells, C. K. and D. M. Morgan (1991) ‘Whose fetus is it?’, Journal of Law and Society, vol. 18, pp. 431–47.
York v. Jones [1989] 717 F Supp 42.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 1995 The Galton Institute
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Morgan, D. (1995). The Legal Status of the Embryo and the Fetus. In: Barron, S.L., Roberts, D.F. (eds) Issues in Fetal Medicine. Studies in Biology, Economy and Society. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-23812-5_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-23812-5_11
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-23814-9
Online ISBN: 978-1-349-23812-5
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)