China
Africa
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
Being Disabled and Contemplating Disabled Children
Published in Joel Michael Reynolds, Christine Wieseler, The Disability Bioethics Reader, 2022
In 2007, the 1990 United Kingdom Human Fertilization and Embryology Act was revised in the light of new developments in assisted reproductive medicine and research. The revision inserted a clause, section 14(4)(9), stating that Persons or embryos that are known to have a gene, chromosome or mitochondrion abnormality involving a significant risk that a person with the abnormality will have or develop—(a) a serious physical or mental disability, (b) a serious illness, or (c) any other serious medical condition, must not be preferred to those that are not known to have such an abnormality.
2 Legal Parentage and Parental Responsibility
Published in Judith Hendrick, Child Care Law for Health Professionals, 2018
Because of the increasing use of these techniques and the inability of the existing legal framework to accommodate them, the Human Fertilization and Embryology Act 1990 introduced new rules about legal parentage and clarified the legal status of a child born as a result of egg donation or embryo transfer.
Health systems
Published in Liam J. Donaldson, Paul D. Rutter, Donaldsons' Essential Public Health, 2017
Liam J. Donaldson, Paul D. Rutter
The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) is the United Kingdom’s independent regulator of treatment using eggs and sperm, and of treatment and research involving human embryos. It sets standards for, and issues licences to, centres involved in human fertilization and embryology. It also provides information for the public – in particular for people seeking treatment, donors and donor-conceived people. It plays a major role in determining the policy framework for fertility issues.
Rheotaxis of sperm in fertile and infertile men
Published in Systems Biology in Reproductive Medicine, 2023
Timor M. El-sherry, Mohammed A. Abdel-Ghani, Hatem K. Abdel Hafez, Mohammed Abdelgawad
Sperm concentration, motility, and morphology have been useful in diagnosing male infertility (Guzick et al. 2001). However, none of these measures can be used alone or in combination to diagnose infertility (Guzick et al. 2001). Using sperm morphology as a predictor of fertilization has been described; some researchers believe that sperm morphology is a useful biomarker of human fertilization capacity (Grow et al. 1994). Others believed that morphology had limited benefits in determining the fertilization rate (Bartoov et al. 1993). Our results showed that even in G2, where sperm morphology was abnormal according to WHO standards and where spermatozoa had low kinetic parameters, some of those spermatozoa could still swim against the flow. This may reflect the strength of those sperm cells and the possibility of using them in assisted reproduction techniques. Subsequently, the current results confirmed that measurements of sperm concentration, motility, and morphology are insufficient to distinguish between fertile and infertile men if the WHO criteria are used.
Counselling challenges associated with donor conception and surrogacy treatments – time for debate
Published in Human Fertility, 2022
Marilyn Crawshaw, Angela Pericleous-Smith, Suzanne Dark
This Commentary highlights areas for debate arising from developments in fertility counselling services with particular reference to donor conception and surrogacy, illustrated by practice and debates in the UK. The British Infertility Counselling Association (BICA), (the professional body that represents fertility counsellors in the UK) was established in 1988 and the breadth of its work is unique. This includes: (i) professional guidelines referenced in the Code of Practice of the regulator, the Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority (HFEA, 2019); (ii) a specialist fertility counselling accreditation scheme (open to UK and overseas members and franchised by the Irish Fertility Counselling Association) and training programme; (iii) the Journal of Fertility Counselling; and (iv) a series of Practice Guides. From its position of influence over national fertility counselling standards and those further afield, its work raises key questions facing today’s fertility counselling services.
Access to Expanded Prenatal Genetic Testing: Response to Open Peer Commentaries
Published in The American Journal of Bioethics, 2022
Michelle J. Bayefsky, Benjamin E. Berkman
Finally, multiple authors, including Callahan and Feudtner (2022), Kleiderman et al. (2022), Esquerda, Lorenzo, and Torralba (2022), and Michie and Allyse (2022) noted the challenge of drawing a line between more and less severe conditions when grouping conditions into categories for testing purposes. Of course, there is no entirely objective way to determine what constitutes a “serious” genetic condition because seriousness depends on a person’s and a society’s capacity to cope with the condition and can vary greatly based on past experience, personal values, financial means, and other factors. It was precisely this concern that led us to incorporate empirical evidence regarding patient preferences for fetal genetic testing into our rationale for categorization. We were certain that we, single-handedly, could not determine what counted as sufficiently serious. At the same time, we stand by our decision to attempt to draw a line somewhere. As we discussed above, it is not practical for patients to be given a long, unfiltered list of conditions and then asked to select for themselves, condition-by-condition, what tests to send. Although we may not have the perfect answer, we believe we have to start somewhere, as agencies such as the Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority have done for preimplantation genetic testing in the United Kingdom. It is difficult, but not impossible, to draw lines in a sensitive, rational and inclusive way. We encourage other scholars to propose their own solutions to this challenging dilemma.