Skip to main content

Judges make surrogacy enforcible

When Parliament agreed the Human Fertilisation Embryology Act in 1990 it decided that surrogacy agreements were not enforcible - whether that is right or not I am not commenting.

36 Amendment of Surrogacy Arrangements Act 1985(1) After section 1 of the [1985 c. 49.] Surrogacy Arrangements Act 1985 there is inserted—
“1A Surrogacy arrangements unenforceable
No surrogacy arrangement is enforceable by or against any of the persons making it.”


The Court of Appeal - however (see link), has just decided that it is acceptable to enforce a surrogacy agreement even though the child has been with its birth mother for 18 months. The issue that concerns me here is the constitutional issue. Parliament decided that surrogacy agreements are unenforcible, but one has just been enforced.

There is also this in the judgment:
Dr Arsen had been instructed by the guardian ad litem, and the guardian ad litem fully supported Dr Arsen's conclusions, as well as expressing her independent expert view that, of the two options that the judge surveyed, the better for N was the future offered by the J's.

Comments

Jim Gras said…
There is much need now to impose proper rules and regulations for surrogacy as it is prevailing.
http://www.becomeasurrogatemom.com
The seminal question here must be; when Parliament passes legislation, under what circumstances may that legislation be altered?
My personal view is that the AC and indeed all courts in the UK should be bound by the laws of the day and any deviations from that legislation should come about as a direct result of the involvement of the public and those politicians who are legitimately elected to represent the people and to address their needs.
Lawyers and politicians have traditionally been appointed to protect people's fundamental rights, not to selectively decide which rights are viable and which are not.

Popular posts from this blog

Why are babies born young?

Why are babies born young? This sounds like an odd question. People would say "of course babies are born young". However, this goes to the core of the question of human (or animal) development. Why is it that as time passes people develop initially through puberty and then for women through menopause and more generally getting diseases such as sarcopenia, osteoporosis, diabetes and cancer, but most of the time babies start showing no signs of this. Lots of research into this has happened over the years and now I think it is clear why this is. It raises some interesting questions. Biological youth is about how well a cell functions. Cells that are old in a biological sense don't work that well. One of the ways in which cells stop working is they fail to produce the full range of proteins. Generally the proteins that are produced from longer genes stop being produced. The reason for this relates to how the Genes work (the Genome). Because the genome is not gettin