IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/medlaw/v32y2024i4p505-529..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Donor conception, direct-to-consumer genetic testing, choices, and procedural justice: an argument for reform of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990

Author

Listed:
  • Caroline A B Redhead
  • Lucy Frith

Abstract

In this article, using theories of procedural justice and ‘slow violence’, we consider potential reform of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990. Our theoretical discussion is underpinned by findings from the ConnecteDNA project, exploring how people affected by donor conception experience direct-to-consumer genetic testing (DTCGT). The negative impacts of DTCGT, especially shock discoveries about the circumstances of someone’s conception in adulthood, are linked to donor anonymity, and how its continued protection is experienced as a barrier to the rights and agency of donor-conceived people. We focus on two key issues relating to the donor information access process set out in section 31ZA of the 1990 Act. The first is that it excludes certain cohorts of donor-conceived people, creating inequalities of access to donor information. The second is the impact of the use of DTCGT to search for that information. We discuss what a procedurally just process of law reform would look like, concluding that, whatever (prospective) approach to donor anonymity is taken, the donor information access process should be the same for all donor-conceived people. We thus argue that, even were the status quo to be maintained, reform of the donor information access process with retrospective effect would be required.

Suggested Citation

  • Caroline A B Redhead & Lucy Frith, 2024. "Donor conception, direct-to-consumer genetic testing, choices, and procedural justice: an argument for reform of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990," Medical Law Review, Oxford University Press, vol. 32(4), pages 505-529.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:medlaw:v:32:y:2024:i:4:p:505-529.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/medlaw/fwae028
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:medlaw:v:32:y:2024:i:4:p:505-529.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/medlaw .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.