Human rights meet parental rights

This week's BioNews includes news of the impending UK Human Rights Act, which might bring with it a rash of court cases from disgruntled people who have been refused fertility treatment on moral grounds. According to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) chief, Ruth Deech, the new legislation may confer new rights on postmenopausal women, lesbian and gay couples and single women who seek access to fertility treatment in order to have the child that their circumstances deny them.

Legal experts may wish to dispute Ruth Deech's prediction that the new legislation will provoke such a rash of claims (and I'd be interested to hear any views on this). But I'm told that the Human Rights Act means that the courts cannot override relevant legislation. And there's no shortage of statutory rules when it comes to assisted reproduction.

The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act - which the HFEA enforces - is often described as a permissive piece of legislation. On the face of it, this is largely true: the act does not specify who should - and who should not - have treatment. But one little clause in the legislation offers some guidance: that the welfare of any child who might be born as a result of treatment be taken into account by the doctor. This is a vague clause, but its intention is painfully clear. Anyone who is deemed by the doctor to be unfit for parenthood can be turned away by the clinic.

As it happens, there probably aren't many people who are actually refused fertility treatment under the terms of the 'welfare of the child' clause. But the numbers of people turned away are not really the point. At Progress Educational Trust, we often get calls from single women or gay couples who fear moral disapproval if they go to a clinic to request treatment. They have seen the damning press reports of gay parents and selfish career women and they assume that their request will not be granted.

The expectation of these people that they will be unfairly treated is understandable. But it cannot be an acceptable state of affairs. After all, if everyone who does not need medical assistance to have a child is trusted to make their own decision about when, how and with whom to have children, why should those people needing medical assistance be singled out and subjected to this kind of moral censure?