ACCESS OF SINGLE WOMEN TO FERTILITY TREATMENT: A CASE OF INCIDENTAL DISCRIMINATION?

The purpose of this article is to evaluate the extent to which single women have access to publicly funded fertility treatment. It claims that, despite the fact that great progress has been made in removing gender inequalities in the area of assisted reproduction in England and Wales in recent years, there are points in the regulatory framework that still allow for discrimination against single women. The article builds on recent studies concerning the reforms brought about by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 (HFEA 2008). However, it focusses on publicly funded treatment, thus directing scholarly attention away from the controversies over the amended s 13(5) HFEA 1990. It argues that the primary reason for remaining inequalities can be traced back to (a) the limitations of the current legislative framework; (b) the ambiguities inherent in the regulatory framework, which in the context of publicly funded fertility treatment is determined by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence clinical guidelines and Clinical Commissioning Groups and Health Boards' resource allocation policies; and (c) the remaining confusion about the relationship between 'welfare of the child' assessments and eligibility criteria in National Health Service rationing decisions. The article argues that the current regulation does not go far enough in acknowledging the inability of single women to conceive naturally, but at the same time that it struggles to address the fluidity of contemporary familial relationships. The analysis presents an opportunity to contribute to debates about the role of law in shaping the scope of reproductive autonomy, gender equality and social justice.

International biomedical law in search for its normative status.

The broad and multifaceted problem of global health law and global health governance has been attracting increasing attention in the last few decades. The global community has failed to establish international legal regime that deals comprehensively with the 'technological revolution'. The latter has posed complex questions to regions of the world with widely differing cultural perspectives. At the same time, an increasing number of governmental and non-state actors have become significantly involved in the sector. They use legal, political, and other forms of decision-making that result in regulatory instruments of contrasting normative status. Law created in this heterogeneous environment has been said to be fragmented, inconsistent, and exacerbating uncertainties. Therefore, claims have been made that a centralised and institutionalised system would help address the problems of transparency, legitimacy and efficiency. Nevertheless, little scholarly consideration is paid to the normative status of international biomedical law. This paper explores whether formalisation and "constitutionalisation" of biomedical law are indeed inevitable for its establishment as a separate regulatory regime. It does so by analysing the proliferation of biomedical law in light of two the theory of fragmentation and the theory of global legal pluralism. Investigating the problem in this way helps determine the theoretical framework and methodology of future studies of biomedical law at the international level. This in turn should help its future development in a more consistent and harmonised manner.

International biomedical law in search for its normative status

El amplio y polifacético problema de un derecho sanitario global y una gobernanza de la salud internacional ha ido cobrando cada vez más importancia en las últimas décadas. La comunidad internacional ha fallado en sus intentos por establecer un régimen legal internacional que se ocupe de manera exhaustiva de la "revolución tecnológica". Esta ha planteado cuestiones complejas en regiones del mundo que cuentan con perspectivas culturales muy diversas. Al mismo tiempo, un número cada vez mayor de participantes gubernamentales y no estatales se han se han implicado de manera significativa en este sector. Utilizando, entre otras formas de toma de decisiones, el derecho y la política, crean instrumentos reguladores con un estado normativo contrastante. Se dice que las leyes creadas en este entorno tan heterogéneo son poco consistentes, están fragmentadas y plagadas de incertidumbres agravantes. Por lo tanto, se ha afirmado que un sistema centralizado e institucionalizado ayudaría a tratar los problemas de transparencia, legitimidad y eficacia. A pesar de ello, el campo académico presta poco atención a la situación normativa del derecho biomédico internacional. Este trabajo investiga si, en efectivo, la formalización y la "constitucionalización" del derecho biomédico son evitables para hacer posible su instauración como régimen regulador independiente. El trabajo analiza la proliferación del derecho biomédico teniendo en cuenta la teoría de la fragmentación y la teoría del pluralismo legal internacional. Este enfoque investigador ayuda a determinar la metodología y el marco teórico de los futuros estudios sobre derecho biomédico a nivel internacional. Esto, a su vez, debería contribuir a que se desarrolle en un futuro de una manera más coherente y armoniosa (AU)

The broad and multifaceted problem of global health law and global health governance has been attracting increasing attention in the last few decades. The global community has failed to establish international legal regime that deals comprehensively with the "technological revolution". The latter has posed complex questions to regions of the world with widely differing cultural perspectives. At the same time, an increasing number of governmental and non-state actors have become significantly involved in sector. They use legal, political, and other forms of decision-making that result in regulatory instruments of contrasting normative status. Law created in this heterogeneous environment has been said to fragmented, inconsistent, and exacerbating uncertainties. Therefore claims have been made that a centralized and instituonalised system would help address the problems of transparency, legitimacy and efficiency. Nevertheless, little scholarly consideration is paid to the normative status of international biomedical law. This paper explores whether formalization and "constitutionalisation" of biomedical law are indeed inevitable for its establishment as a separate regulatory regime. It does so by analysing the proliferation of biomedical law in light of two the theory of fragmentation and the theory of global legal pluralism. Investigating the problem in this was helps determine the theoretical framework and methodology of future studies of biomedical law at the international level. This in turn should help its future development in a more consistent and harmonized manner (AU)

Conceptual quandaries about genetic data--a comparative perspective.

Recently, several regulatory initiatives have been taken by the Council of Europe, OECD and national legislators to regulate different aspects of human genetics. However, the latest research findings and the emergence of systems biology call this approach into question as they constitute a substantial change in natural science and philosophy. This article argues that law should take this paradigm shift into consideration and that it is not possible to perceive genetic data as exceptional and suitable for special protection. Instead, norms should be designed around notions such as 'biological' and 'predictive' data.