IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/medlaw/v32y2024i1p61-80..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The role of non-genetic parents in a surrogate-born child’s identity: an argument for removal of the genetic link requirement

Author

Listed:
  • Lottie Park-Morton

Abstract

For the court to grant a parental order recognising intended parents as legal parents of a surrogate-born child, the gametes of at least one of the intended parents must have been used to create the embryo, under section 54(1)(b) and section 54A(1)(b) Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008. In the Law Commission and Scottish Law Commission’s consultation paper, there was a provisional proposal to remove the genetic link requirement in cases of medical necessity. However, this proposal was not included in the Law Commissions’ Final Report, instead recommending the retention of the requirement for a genetic link in almost all circumstances. This article contends that the Law Commissions’ recommendation should be reconsidered in light of the child’s right to identity. By reviewing how identity has been used by the courts when determining whether to grant a parental order, as well as a developing interpretation of Article 8 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and European Convention on Human Rights, it can be asserted that the identity of surrogate-born children necessitates recognition of the relationship between the child and intended parent(s), irrespective of a genetic link. On this basis, it is argued that there should be the possibility for intended parents to establish legal parenthood following surrogacy without the requirement for a genetic link.

Suggested Citation

  • Lottie Park-Morton, 2024. "The role of non-genetic parents in a surrogate-born child’s identity: an argument for removal of the genetic link requirement," Medical Law Review, Oxford University Press, vol. 32(1), pages 61-80.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:medlaw:v:32:y:2024:i:1:p:61-80.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/medlaw/fwad032
    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:1:p:61-80.. 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.