1.
Laurie GT, Harmon S, Dove ES, Mason JK, McCall Smith A. Mason & McCall Smith’s law & medical ethics [Internet]. 11th edn. [Oxford]: Oxford University Press; 2019. Available from: https://ezproxy.lib.gla.ac.uk/login?url=https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/he/9780198826217.001.0001
2.
Re D (A Minor) [1976] 2 W.L.R. 279. *185 In Re D. (A Minor) (Wardship: Sterilisation). 17AD.
3.
Re B (a minor) [1987] 2 W.L.R. 1213. *199 In Re B. (A Minor) (Wardship: Sterilisation).
4.
Margaret Patricia Briody v St Helen’s & Knowsley Area Health Authority 2001 WL 676777. 29AD.
5.
Natallie Evans v Amicus Healthcare Ltd & Others [2004] EWCA (Civ) 727. Natallie Evans v Amicus Healthcare Ltd & Others. 25AD.
6.
EVANS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM - 6339/05 [2006] ECHR 200 (7 March 2006).
7.
R (on the application of IM, MM) v Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority [2015] EWHC 1706 (Admin). The Queen (on the application of IM, MM) v Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. 15AD.
8.
H v Austria (57813/00). H v Austria (57813/00). 3AD.
9.
Council of Europe: European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms [Internet]. Available from: http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Convention_ENG.pdf
10.
Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 c. 37.
11.
Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008.
12.
Eijkholt M. The Right To Found A Family As A Stillborn Right To Procreate? Medical Law Review. 2010 Mar 1;18(2):127–151.
13.
Hugh Lafollette. Licensing Parents. Philosophy & Public Affairs [Internet]. WileyWiley; 1980;9(2):182–197. Available from: https://ezproxy.lib.gla.ac.uk/login?url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/2265111
14.
Mulligan A. Reproductive rights under article 8: the right to respect for the decision to become or not to become a parent E.H.R.L.R. European Human Rights Law Review [Internet]. 2014;4:378–387. Available from: https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https%3A%2F%2Fidp.gla.ac.uk%2Fshibboleth&returnto=https%3A%2F%2Fuk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com%2FDocument%2FIE00210F021B011E4A575BB3329EF9E75%2FView%2FFullText.html%3FskipAnonymous%3Dtrue
15.
LaFOLLETTE H. Licensing Parents Revisited. Journal of Applied Philosophy [Internet]. 2010 Nov;27(4):327–343. Available from: https://ezproxy.lib.gla.ac.uk/login?url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/2265111
16.
Priaulx N. Rethinking Progenitive Conflict: Why Reproductive Autonomy Matters. Medical Law Review. 2008 Apr 18;16(2):169–200.
17.
Parker M. The best possible child. Journal of Medical Ethics. 2007 May 1;33(5):279–283.
18.
Robertson JA. Children of choice: freedom and the new reproductive technologies. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press; 1994.
19.
Birk D. Human fertilisation and embryology: the new law. Bristol: Family Law; 2009.
20.
Burns S. The law of assisted reproduction. Haywards Heath: Bloomsbury Professional; 2012.
21.
Scherpe JM. MEDICALLY ASSISTED PROCREATION: THIS MARGIN NEEDS TO BE APPRECIATED. The Cambridge Law Journal. 2012 Jul;71(02):276–279.
22.
Storrow R. SH v Austria denies infertile Europeans human rights - BioNews [Internet]. 2012. Available from: http://www.bionews.org.uk/page_117832.asp
23.
Warnock M. Making babies: is there a right to have children? Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2002.
24.
Quigley M. A Right to Reproduce? Bioethics. 2010 Oct;24(8):403–411.
25.
Harris J, Holm S, MyiLibrary. The future of human reproduction: ethics, choice and regulation [Internet]. Oxford: Clarendon Press; 1998. Available from: http://lib.myilibrary.com/browse/open.asp?id=80723&entityid=https://idp.gla.ac.uk/shibboleth
26.
McGuinness S. Health, Human Rights and the Regulation of Reproductive Technologies in S.H. And Others V Austria (Application No. 57813/00). Medical Law Review. 2013 Mar 1;21(1):146–160.
27.
Farrell AM, Dove ES, Laurie GT, Mason JK. Mason & McCall Smith’s law & medical ethics [Internet]. Twelfth edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2023. Available from: https://ezproxy.lib.gla.ac.uk/login?url=https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/he/9780192866226.001.0001
28.
Jackson E. Medical law: text, cases, and materials [Internet]. 5th edn. [Oxford]: Oxford University Press; 2019. Available from: https://ezproxy.lib.gla.ac.uk/login?url=https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/he/9780198825845.001.0001
29.
R v Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, ex parte Blood [1999] Fam. 151. *151 Regina v Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority,. 6AD.
30.
5/FD02P00895High Court of Justice Queens Bench Division26 February 2003Before: The President Wednesday 26th February, 2003, Hearing dates : 20th, 21st and 22nd January 2003Crown copyright. The Leeds Teaching Hospital NHS Trust v A & Others case [2003] EWHC 259(QB). The L Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust v Mr A, Mrs A, YA, ZA (By their Litigation Friend, The Official Solicitor), The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, Mr B, Mrs B. 26AD.
31.
Natallie Evans v Amicus Healthcare Ltd & Others [2004] EWCA (Civ) 727. Natallie Evans v Amicus Healthcare Ltd & Others. 25AD.
32.
Case of Evans v The United Kingdom - 6339/05 [2006] ECHR 200 (7 March 2006). 7AD.
33.
Dickson v The United Kingdom - 44362/04 [2006] ECHR 430 (18 April 2006).
34.
Yearworth v North Bristol NHS Trust [2009] EWCA Civ 37, [2009] 3 WLR 118 (CA).
35.
A (Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008: Assisted Reproduction: Parent), Re [2015] EWHC 2602 (Fam); A (Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008: Assisted Reproduction: Parent), Re. 11AD.
36.
R (on the application of M) v Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority [2016] EWCA Civ 611. R. (on the application of M) v Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. 30AD.
37.
R (ex p. Mellor) v Secretary of State for the Home Dept, April 2001 (CA). R. (on the application of Mellor) v Secretary of State for the Home Department.
38.
R v Ethical Committee of St. Mary’s Hospital (Manchester), ex p. Harriot [1988] FLR 512.
39.
R v Sheffield Health Authority, ex parte Seale (1994) 25 BMLR 1.
40.
Thompson v Sheffield Fertility Clinic (QBD) 2000 WL 33148917. *1 Patricia Thompson v Sheffield Fertility Clinic. 24AD.
41.
Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers MR, Thorpe and Buxton LJJ 2002 Jan 16; 18(c) Incorporated Council of Law Reporting for England & Wales. R (ex p. Quintavalle) v Secretary of State for Health [2002] EWCA Civ 29. *628 Regina (Quintavalle) v Secretary of State for Health.
42.
R v HFEA, (ex p. Assisted Reproduction and Gynaecology Centre and H) [2002] EWCA Civ 20. The Queen on the Application of Assisted Reproduction and Gynaecology Centre, "H” v The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. 31AD.
43.
Mrs U v Centre for Reproductive Medicine [2002] EWCA Civ 565. Mrs U v Centre for Reproductive Medicine. 24AD.
44.
Attorney General’s Reference 2 of 2003 [2004] 1 WLR 2062. 1AD.
45.
Rose and another v Secretary of State for Health, Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority [2002]EWHC 1593 (ADMIN). Rose and another v Secretary of State for Health, Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. 26AD.
46.
L v The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, Secretary of State for Health - [2008] EWHC 2149 (Fam).
47.
G (Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008), Re [2016] EWHC 729 (Fam), [2016] 4 WLR 65.
48.
Re E (Assisted Reproduction: Parent), also known as: AB v CD, [2013] EWHC 1418 (Fam) official transcript on Westlaw.
49.
Holdich v Lothian Health Board [2013] CSOH 197; 2014 S.L.T. 495; Court of Session (Outer House).
50.
R (on the application of AB) v Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority [2014] EWHC 1528 (Admin).
51.
Warren v Care Fertility (Northampton) Ltd [2014] EWHC 602 (Fam.
52.
In the matter of HFEA 2008 (Cases A, B, C, D, E, F, G and H Declaration of Parentage) [2015] EWHC 2602 (Fam). Family Law Week.
53.
X v St Bartholomew’s Hospital Centre for Reproductive Medicine [2015] EWFC 13; [2015].
54.
Parrillo v Italy (Application No.46470/11), Grand Chamber Judgment [2015] ECHR 755, (2016) 62 EHRR 8, 27 August 2015.
55.
M (Human Fertilisation Embryology Act 2008), Re [2016] EWHC 1572 (Fam).
56.
Jefferies v BMI Healthcare Ltd - Case Analysis - EWHC 2493 (Fam); [2016] Med. L.R. 656 (Fam Div).
57.
Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 c. 37.
58.
Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008.
59.
Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, Strategy and Information Directorate, Web team,. HFEA - Code of Practice 8 [Internet]. Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, 21 Bloomsbury Street, London, WC1B 3HF; Available from: https://www.hfea.gov.uk/code-of-practice/
60.
Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Mitochondrial Donation) Regulations 2015/572.
61.
Alghrani A, Harris J. Reproductive liberty: should the foundation of families be regulated? Child and Family Law Quarterly [Internet]. 2006;18(2):157–306. Available from: http://ezproxy.lib.gla.ac.uk/login?url=http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/chilflq18&size=2&collection=journals&id=195
62.
Walker SEP. Potential persons and the welfare of the (potential) child test. Medical Law International. 2014 Sep 1;14(3):157–171.
63.
Sheldon S, Lee E, Macvarish J. ‘Supportive Parenting’, Responsibility and Regulation: The Welfare Assessment under the Reformed Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act (1990). The Modern Law Review. 2015 May;78(3):461–492.
64.
House of Commons, Science and Technology Committee (March 2005) ‘Human Reproductive Technologies and the Law’, 5th Report of Session 2004-05, HC 7-1 [Internet]. Available from: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmselect/cmsctech/7/7i.pdf
65.
Laing JA. Artificial Reproduction, the ‘Welfare Principle’, and the Common Good. Medical Law Review. 2005 Aug 19;13(3):328–356.
66.
Clarke V. Men Not Included? Journal of GLBT Family Studies. 2007 Feb 6;3(4):309–349.
67.
Fenton RA. Time for change (1). The New Law Journal [Internet]. 15AD;157(7277). Available from: https://plus-lexis-com.ezproxy.lib.gla.ac.uk/api/document/collection/uk/id/4P01-5BK0-TWWR-G0BY-00000-00?context=1001073&identityprofileid=32QDCK57563
68.
Fenton RA. Time for change (2). The New Law Journal [Internet]. 6AD;157(7280). Available from: https://plus-lexis-com.ezproxy.lib.gla.ac.uk/api/document/collection/uk/id/4P4F-J1B0-TWWR-G0V2-00000-00?context=1001073&identityprofileid=32QDCK57563
69.
Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, Strategy and Information Directorate, Web team,. HFEA - Code of Practice 8 [Internet]. Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, 21 Bloomsbury Street, London, WC1B 3HF; Available from: https://www.hfea.gov.uk/code-of-practice/
70.
Parental status ‘lost to incompetence in IVF sector’ - BBC News [Internet]. Available from: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34222268
71.
NHS IVF services to be fairer and faster | Scottish Government | Official Press Release [Internet]. Available from: http://www.wired-gov.net/wg/wg-news-1.nsf/0/254AEB4F6E6547BB80257B6D0021AA82?OpenDocument
72.
Can I get IVF treatment on the NHS? - Health questions - NHS Choices. Available from: https://www.nhs.uk/chq/Pages/889.aspx
73.
65-year-old woman’s IVF pregnancy branded irresponsible and inadvisable | World news | The Guardian [Internet]. Available from: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/15/german-politicians-criticise-65-annegret-raunigk-pregnant-quadruplets
74.
German woman Annegret Raunigk, 65, has quadruplets - media - BBC News [Internet]. 2015. Available from: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-32857398
75.
Is this Wales’ oldest IVF dad? Malcolm, 67, fathers daughter with wife, 31 - Wales Online [Internet]. 2013. Available from: http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/local-news/wales-oldest-ivf-dad-malcolm-2031950
76.
Callus T. Ensuring Operational Compliance and Ethical Responsibility in the Regulation of ART: The HFEA, Past, Present, and Future. Law, Innovation and Technology. 2011 Jul 1;3(1):85–111.
77.
Black G. When is a Parent not a Parent? CS v KS and JS and the Question of Genetic Parentage or Social Parenting. Edinburgh Law Review. 2015 May;19(2):263–268.
78.
Embryo donation: in vitro fertilisation - scientific research. European Human Rights Law Review [Internet]. 2015;(6):656–661. Available from: https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https%3A%2F%2Fidp.gla.ac.uk%2Fshibboleth&returnto=https%3A%2F%2Fuk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com%2FDocument%2FI534B357099E011E5AEE9D7053076D9EE%2FView%2FFullText.html%3FskipAnonymous%3Dtrue
79.
ESHRE First live birth after transplantation of ovarian tissue removed and frozen during childhood 10 June 2015 [Internet]. 10AD. Available from: https://www.eshre.eu/Press-Room/Press-releases-2015/Live-birth-after-ovarian-freezing
80.
Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, Strategy and Information Directorate, Web team,. Medical Frontiers: Debating mitochondria replacement [Internet]. Human Fertilisation & Embryology Authority, Finsbury Tower 103-105, Bunhill Row, London, EC1Y 8HF; 2013. Available from: https://sciencewise.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Mito-Annex_V-open_consultation_meetings.pdf
81.
Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, Strategy and Information Directorate, Web team,. What you can find out about your child’s donor - HFEA [Internet]. Human Fertilisation & Embryology Authority, Finsbury Tower 103-105, Bunhill Row, London, EC1Y 8HF; Available from: http://www.hfea.gov.uk/118.html
82.
Two health regulators spared axe but face efficiency review | Society | The Guardian [Internet]. Available from: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/jan/25/two-health-regulators-spared-axe
83.
Laurie GT, Harmon S, Dove ES, Mason JK, McCall Smith A. Mason & McCall Smith’s law & medical ethics [Internet]. 11th edn. [Oxford]: Oxford University Press; 2019. Available from: https://ezproxy.lib.gla.ac.uk/login?url=https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/he/9780198826217.001.0001
84.
Jackson E. Medical law: text, cases, and materials. Fourth edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2016.
85.
Surrogacy Arrangements Act 1985 c. 49.
86.
Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 c. 37.
87.
Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 c. 37.
88.
Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Parental Orders) Regulations 2010/985.
89.
Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, Strategy and Information Directorate, Web team,. HFEA - Code of Practice 8 [Internet]. Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, 21 Bloomsbury Street, London, WC1B 3HF; Available from: https://www.hfea.gov.uk/media/2062/2017-10-02-code-of-practice-8th-edition-full-version-11th-revision-final-clean.pdf
90.
Warnock M, Department of Health and Social Security; In Vitro Fertilisation Departmental Committee. Report of the Committee of inquiry into human fertilisation & embryology. Chairman - Dame Mary Warnock.Dept of Health and Social Security; In Vitro Fertilisation Departmental Committee: Report of the Committee of inquiry into human fertilisation & embryology. Chairman - Dame Mary Warnock. [Internet]. Available from: https://ezproxy.lib.gla.ac.uk/login?url=https://parlipapers.proquest.com/parlipapers/docview/t70.d75.1983-077555?accountid=14540
91.
Brazier M, Campbell A, Golombok S. Surrogacy: review for health ministers of current arrangements for payments and regulation : report of the review team. London: Stationery Office; 1998.
92.
Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008.
93.
Re C [1985] FLR 846. 1985.
94.
Re an adoption application (surrogacy). All England Law Reports. 1987.
95.
Re an adoption application (surrogacy) [1987] 2 All ER 826. *81 In Re Adoption Application (Payment for Adoption).
96.
Re C (A Child) [2002] EWHC 157 (Fam Div).
97.
Re X and Y (Foreign Surrogacy) [2008] EWHC 3030 (Fam). 2008.
98.
*Re X and another (Foreign Surrogacy) , [2008] EWHC 3030 (Fam). All England Reporter [Internet]. Available from: https://plus-lexis-com.ezproxy.lib.gla.ac.uk/api/document/collection/uk/id/7VK4-48H0-Y96Y-H32V-00000-00?context=1001073&identityprofileid=32QDCK57563
99.
Re S (Parental Order) [2009] EWHC 2977 (Fam). 2009.
100.
Re G (Surrogacy: Foreign Domicile) [2007] EWHC 2814 (Fam). 2007.
101.
Re G (Surrogacy: Foreign Domicile) [2007] EWHC 2814 (Fam).
102.
Re G (Surrogacy: Foreign Domicile) [2007] EWHC 2814 (Fam). 2007.
103.
Re L (a minor) [2010] EWHC 3146 (Fam).
104.
Re IJ (a child) [2011] EWHC 921 (Fam).
105.
A & Anor v P & Ors [2011] EWHC 1738 (Fam).
106.
Re T (a child)( Surrogacy: residence order) [2011] EWHC 33 (Fam).
107.
Briody v St Helen’s and Knowsley Area Health Authority [2001] EWCA Civ 1010.
108.
K (Minors: Foreign Surrogacy) [2010] EWHC 1180 (Fam)-.
109.
G v G [2012] EWHC 1979 (Fam).
110.
CC v DD [2014] EWHC 1307 (Fam).
111.
A & B v X & Y & Ors [2015] EWHC 2080 (Fam) - Field Court Chambers.
112.
H v S (Surrogacy Agreement) [2015] EWFC 36.
113.
Horsey K, Sheldon S. Still hazy after all these years: the law regulating surrogacy. Medical Law Review. 2012 Mar 1;20(1):67–89.
114.
The Hague, ‘A preliminary report on the issues arising from international surrogacy arrangements’ April 2012. [Internet]. Available from: https://assets.hcch.net/upload/wop/gap2012pd10en.pdf
115.
Beaumont P, Trimmings K. Regulating international surrogacy arrangements. International Family Law Journal [Internet]. 2012;(1):1–134. Available from: https://ezproxy.lib.gla.ac.uk/login?url=https://plus.lexis.com/api/permalink/9673682e-e18d-4bfc-a7f8-08aa5691c866/?context=1001073&identityprofileid=32QDCK57563
116.
Hutchinson AM, Khan H. International Surrogacy Arrangements: Time for a Multi-lateral Convention? International Family Law Journal [Internet]. 2011;(4):263–360. Available from: https://ezproxy.lib.gla.ac.uk/login?url=https://plus.lexis.com/api/permalink/cdd3bb72-6e96-48e1-9b66-c4f2bbccf156/?context=1001073&identityprofileid=32QDCK57563
117.
Horsey K. Challenging presumptions: legal parenthood and surrogacy arrangements. Child and Family Law Quarterly [Internet]. 2010;22(4):377–520. Available from: https://ezproxy.lib.gla.ac.uk/login?url=https://plus.lexis.com/uk?identityprofileid=32QDCK57563
118.
Gamble N, Ghevaert L. The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008: Revolution or Evolution? Family law [Internet]. 2009;39(8):649–776. Available from: https://ezproxy.lib.gla.ac.uk/login?url=https://plus.lexis.com/api/permalink/b3a5b9eb-63a5-4493-9fc7-f442e4aeb64c/?context=1001073&identityprofileid=32QDCK57563
119.
Ramsey J. Fit for the 21st Century? A Review of Surrogacy Provisions within the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990. Medical Law International. 2006 Sep 1;7(4):281–307.
120.
Ramsey J. Paying for Reproduction – The Case Against Paid Surrogacy. The Juridical review. Edinburgh: W. Green & Sons [etc.]; 2006;(4):325–349.
121.
McLachlan HV, Swales JK. Babies, Child Bearers and Commodification: Anderson, Brazier et al., and the Political Economy of Commercial Surrogate Motherhood. Health Care Analysis. 2000;8(1):1–18.
122.
Anderson ES. Why Commercial Surrogate Motherhood Unethically Commodifies Women and Children: Reply to McLachlan and Swales. Health Care Analysis. 2000;8(1):19–26.
123.
Freeman M. Does surrogacy have a future after Brazier? Medical Law Review. 1999 Mar 1;7(1):1–20.
124.
McLean S. Legal issues in human reproduction. Aldershot: Dartmouth/Gower; 1989.
125.
Gamble N. Surrogacy: creating a sensible national and international legal framework. International Family Law [Internet]. 2012;(3):257–366. Available from: https://ezproxy.lib.gla.ac.uk/login?url=https://plus.lexis.com/api/permalink/cb91e83a-0c94-4804-a39f-d87f3345c7f1/?context=1001073&identityprofileid=32QDCK57563
126.
Gamble N. International surrogacy law conference in Las Vegas, October 2011. Family Law [Internet]. 2012;42(2):115–248. Available from: https://ezproxy.lib.gla.ac.uk/login?url=https://plus.lexis.com/api/permalink/f2e81c12-8d6a-48b6-bae0-ba48e01466c3/?context=1001073&identityprofileid=32QDCK57563
127.
Gamble N, Ghevaert L. International Surrogacy: Payments, Public Policy and Media Hype. Family law [Internet]. 2011;41(5):445–558. Available from: https://ezproxy.lib.gla.ac.uk/login?url=https://plus.lexis.com/api/permalink/22882172-90ad-4b99-ad15-1ea0404ce6c7/?context=1001073&identityprofileid=32QDCK57563
128.
Gamble N, Ghevaert L. Lesbian Mothers in Dispute: T v B. Family law [Internet]. 2010;40(11):1153–1248. Available from: https://ezproxy.lib.gla.ac.uk/login?url=https://plus.lexis.com/api/permalink/9a0344b1-8efc-43a8-b4f4-b97746015621/?context=1001073&identityprofileid=32QDCK57563
129.
Finnerty S. Who profits from international surrogacy? The legal and bioethical ramifications of international surrogacy. Medico-Legal Journal of Ireland [Internet]. 2015;21(2):83–87. Available from: https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https%3A%2F%2Fidp.gla.ac.uk%2Fshibboleth&returnto=https%3A%2F%2Fuk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com%2FDocument%2FIEB093FD0A98311E5A3FC839483A8C718%2FView%2FFullText.html%3FskipAnonymous%3Dtrue
130.
Blyth E. Parental Orders and identity registration: one country three systems. Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law. 2010 Dec;32(4):345–352.
131.
Wilkinson S. The exploitation argument against commercial surrogacy. Bioethics. 2003 Apr;17(2):169–187.
132.
Jackson E. Regulating reproduction: law, technology, and autonomy [Internet]. Oxford: Hart Pub; 2001. Available from: https://ezproxy.lib.gla.ac.uk/login?url=https://portal.igpublish.com/iglibrary/search/HARTB0000222.html
133.
British Medical Association. Changing conceptions of motherhood: the practice of surrogacy in Britain. London: BMA; 1996.
134.
Cutas D, Chan S, editors. Families: beyond the nuclear ideal. Paperback edition. London: Bloomsbury Academic; 2014.
135.
Ramskold LAH, Posner MP. Commercial surrogacy: how provisions of monetary remuneration and powers of international law can prevent exploitation of gestational surrogates. Journal of Medical Ethics. 2013 Jun;39(6):397–402.
136.
Leading cases - Natalie Gamble Associates [Internet]. Available from: http://www.nataliegambleassociates.co.uk/about-us/leading-cases
137.
Childlessness Overcome Through Surrogacy (COTS) [Internet]. Available from: http://www.surrogacy.org.uk/
138.
Gamble and Ghevaert LLP – Fertility and Parenting Law Specialists [Internet]. Available from: http://www.nataliegambleassociates.co.uk/knowledge-centre
139.
Leading cases - Natalie Gamble Associates [Internet]. Available from: http://www.nataliegambleassociates.co.uk/about-us/leading-cases
140.
Register a birth - GOV.UK [Internet]. Available from: https://www.gov.uk/register-birth/overview
141.
Home Office UK Border Agency Website, ‘Inter-Country Surrogacy and the Immigration Rules’ Inter- Country Surrogacy Leaflet (October 2009) [Internet]. Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/261435/Intercountry-surrogacy-leaflet.pdf
142.
Foreign and Commonwealth Office: Surrogacy Overseas [Internet]. Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/477720/new_1.pdf
143.
In the matter of Z (A Child) - Parental Order and Single [Internet]. Available from: https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/re-z-20160520.pdf
144.
Knowledge centre - Natalie Gamble Associates [Internet]. Available from: http://www.nataliegambleassociates.co.uk/knowledge-centre?root_level_topic=surrogacy
145.
J v G (Parental Orders) [2013] EWHC 1432 (Fam). Family law reports [Internet]. 2013;1. Available from: https://ezproxy.lib.gla.ac.uk/login?url=https://plus.lexis.com/api/permalink/8405b1cf-33a4-4e80-9d6a-9920d2a35b1b/?context=1001073&identityprofileid=32QDCK57563
146.
Home - Brilliant Beginnings [Internet]. Available from: http://www.brilliantbeginnings.co.uk/
147.
Another thought - womb transplants as a future.
148.
BBC Four - House of Surrogates [Internet]. Available from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03c591s
149.
House of Commons, Science and Technology Committee (2005) Human Reproductive Technologies and the Law 5th Report of Session 2004-05, HC 7-1, 14th March 2005 [Internet]. Available from: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmselect/cmsctech/7/7i.pdf
150.
Great Britain. Department of Health. Review of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act: a public consultation [Internet]. London: Department of Health; 2005. Available from: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/www.dh.gov.uk/en/Consultations/Closedconsultations/DH_4123863
151.
Department of Health (December 2006) Review of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act – Proposals for revised legislation [Internet]. Available from: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130107105354/http://www.dh.gov.uk/prod_consum_dh/groups/dh_digitalassets/@dh/@en/documents/digitalasset/dh_073065.pdf
152.
Consultation report on the Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Parental Orders) Regulations 2010, Department of Health, January 2010 [Internet]. Available from: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/www.dh.gov.uk/en/Consultations/Responsestoconsultations/DH_111659
153.
Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Parental Orders) Regulations 2010/985.
154.
Maternity leave rights to be introduced for parents through surrogacy’ NatalieGamble Associates (2012) - Blog - Natalie Gamble Associates [Internet]. Available from: http://www.nataliegambleassociates.co.uk/blog/2012/11/15/maternity-leave-rights-to-be-introduced-for-parents-through-surrogacy/
155.
Modern workplaces consultation - government response [Internet]. Government Equalities Office; 2012. Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/modern-workplaces-consultation-government-response--2
156.
R (ex p. John Smeaton on Behalf of Society for the Protection of Unborn Children) v The Secretary of State for Health, Schering Health Care Limited, Family Planning Association 18 April 2002 QBD (Admin Ct) [2002] EWHC 610.
157.
R v Sec of State for Health and FPA, ex p Axon [2006] EWCA 37.
158.
Gillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech Area Health Authority [1985] 3 WLR 830 (HL).
159.
A Local Authority v Mrs A & Mr B [2010] EWHC 1549.
160.
Sheldon S. The regulatory cliff edge between contraception and abortion: the legal and moral significance of implantation. Journal of Medical Ethics. 2015 Sep;41(9):762–765.
161.
Bridgeman J. Young people and sexual health: whose rights? Whose responsibilities? Medical Law Review. 2006 Sep 8;14(3):418–424.
162.
Scheiwe K. Between autonomy and dependency: minors’ rights to decide on matters of sexuality, reproduction, marriage, and parenthood. Problems and the state of debate - an introduction. International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family [Internet]. 2004;18(3):262–282. Available from: https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https%3A%2F%2Fidp.gla.ac.uk%2Fshibboleth&returnto=https%3A%2F%2Fuk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com%2FDocument%2FI29059EC0E71311DA915EF37CAC72F838%2FView%2FFullText.html%3FskipAnonymous%3Dtrue
163.
Chalmers J. Regulating adolescent sexuality: English and Scottish approaches compared. Child and family law quarterly [Internet]. 2011;23(4):429–546. Available from: https://ezproxy.lib.gla.ac.uk/login?url=https://plus.lexis.com/api/permalink/c2cc6afe-3cba-4a5e-be83-4c4aa1cbbf87/?context=1001073&identityprofileid=32QDCK57563
164.
Mason JK. Medico-legal aspects of reproduction and parenthood. 2nd ed. Aldershot: Dartmouth; 1998.
165.
Kennedy I. Treat me right: essays in medical law and ethics. Oxford: Clarendon Press; 1988.
166.
Keown J. ‘Morning after’ pills, ‘miscarriage’ and muddle. Legal Studies. 2005 Jul;25(2):296–319.
167.
Smith JC, Tausz D. Morning-after pill: whether prescription, supply, administration or use of contraceptive pills involving commission of any offences. Criminal Law Review [Internet]. 2002;664–666. Available from: https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https%3A%2F%2Fidp.gla.ac.uk%2Fshibboleth&returnto=https%3A%2F%2Fuk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com%2FDocument%2FI78EF5EB0E45411DA92358E85EE602D8A%2FView%2FFullText.html%3FskipAnonymous%3Dtrue
168.
Robertson JA. Children of choice: freedom and the new reproductive technologies. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press; 1994.
169.
Dworkin R. Life’s dominion: an argument about abortion and euthanasia. London: HarperCollins; 1993.
170.
Glover J. Causing death and saving lives. Harmondsworth: Penguin; 1990.
171.
Harris J, Dawson Books. The value of life [Internet]. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul; 1985. Available from: http://www.dawsonera.com/guard/protected/dawson.jsp?name=University%20of%20Glasgow&dest=http://www.dawsonera.com/depp/reader/protected/external/AbstractView/S9780203005606
172.
Lockwood M. Moral dilemmas in modern medicine. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1985.
173.
Department of Health, ‘Best practice guidance for doctors and other health professionals on the provision of advice and treatment to young people under 16 on contraception, sexual and reproductive health’ (July 2004) [Internet]. Available from: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130107105354/http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH_4086960
174.
0-18 years: guidance for all doctors. General Medical Council; Available from: https://www.gmc-uk.org/ethical-guidance/ethical-guidance-for-doctors/0-18-years
175.
Age of Legal Capacity (Scotland) Act 1991 c. 50.
176.
Section 8 Family Law Reform Act 1969.
177.
Mental Capacity Act 2005.
178.
Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Act 2000 asp 4 (Scottish Act).
179.
What is contraception? - Contraception guide - NHS Choices. Available from: https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/contraception-guide/pages/what-is-contraception.aspx
180.
DIY contraceptive jab to be offered by the NHS for the first time - BBC Newsbeat [Internet]. Available from: https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/34346610/diy-contraceptive-jab-to-be-offered-by-the-nhs-for-the-first-time
181.
Mental Health Trust v DD [2015] EWCOP 4.
182.
Re D (a minor) [1976] 1 All ER 326. 1976.
183.
Re D (a minor) [1976] 2 WLR 279.
184.
Re B (a minor) (wardship: sterilisation) [1987] 2 All ER 206 (HL). 1987.
185.
Re B (a minor) (wardship: sterilisation)[1987] 2 W.L.R. 1213.
186.
Re B (a minor) (wardship: sterilisation) [1988] A.C. 199.
187.
F v West Berkshire Area Health Authority [1989] 2 All ER 545 (HL).
188.
F v West Berkshire Area Health Authority [1989] 2 W.L.R. 1025 [1990] 2 A.C. 1.
189.
Re S (Adult Patient: Sterilisation: Patient’s Best Interests) [2001] Fam 15.
190.
Re SL (Adult Patient) (Medical Treatment) [2000] 3 WLR 1288.
191.
Re SL v SL [2000] 2 FLR 389.
192.
Re SL [2000] 55 BMLR 105(CA).
193.
Re A (male sterilisation) (Mental Patient: Sterilisation), Also known as: Re A (Medical Treatment: Male Sterilisation) and as Re R-B (A Patient) v Official Solicitor and as Re RB (Male Patient: Sterilisation) [2000] 1 FLR 549.
194.
Re A (Medical Treatment: Male Sterilisation [2000] 1 FCR 193.
195.
Re A (medical treatment: male sterilisation) [2000] 53 BMLR 66 (CA).
196.
Re R-B (A Patient) v Official Solicitor 1999 WL 1425731.
197.
Trust A and Another v H (An Adult Patient) [2006] EWHC 1230 (Fam) - Family Law Week.
198.
E v Eve (1986) 31 DLR (4th) 1, (Supreme Court of Canada).
199.
Laurie GT, Harmon S, Dove ES, Mason JK, McCall Smith A. Mason & McCall Smith’s law & medical ethics [Internet]. 11th edn. [Oxford]: Oxford University Press; 2019. Available from: https://ezproxy.lib.gla.ac.uk/login?url=https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/he/9780198826217.001.0001
200.
Barton-Hanson R. Sterilization of men with intellectual disabilities: Whose best interest is it anyway? Medical Law International. 2015 Mar 1;15(1):49–73.
201.
Shaw J. Sterilisation of Mentally Handicapped People: Judges Rule OK? The Modern Law Review [Internet]. WileyModern Law ReviewModern Law Review; 1990;53(1):91–106. Available from: https://ezproxy.lib.gla.ac.uk/login?url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/1096044
202.
Freeman MDA. Medicine, ethics and the law. London: Stevens; 1988.
203.
McNorrie KMcK. Family planning practice and the law. Aldershot: Dartmouth; 1991.
204.
Wheat K. Best Interests and the Bolam Test. Nottingham Law Journal [Internet]. 2001;10(1):68–74. Available from: https://ezproxy.lib.gla.ac.uk/login?url=https://www.heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/notnghmlj10&collection=journals&id=76
205.
Samiloff J. Whose choice? The New Law Journal [Internet]. 157(7296). Available from: https://ezproxy.lib.gla.ac.uk/login?url=https://plus.lexis.com/api/document/collection/uk/id/4R3C-4B00-TWWR-G1CS-00000-00?context=1001073&identityprofileid=32QDCK57563
206.
BMA - Mental capacity for adults in Scotland and Northern Ireland [Internet]. Available from: https://www.bma.org.uk/advice/employment/ethics/mental-capacity/mental-capacity-scotland-and-ni
207.
Practice Note (Official Solicitor: Declaratory Proceedings: Medical and Welfare Proceedings for Adults Who Lack Capacity) 1 May 2001. Family Law Reports [Internet]. 2001;2. Available from: https://plus-lexis-com.ezproxy.lib.gla.ac.uk/api/document/collection/uk/id/5JVX-KPY1-DY9F-G10K-00000-00?context=1001073&identityprofileid=32QDCK57563
208.
Practice Note (Official Solicitor: Declaratory Proceedings: Medical and Welfare Proceedings for Adults Who Lack Capacity) 1 May 2001 - [2001] 2 FLR 158, [2001] 2 FCR 569. Practice Note (Official Solicitor: Declaratory Proceedings: Medical and Welfare Proceedings for Adults Who Lack Capacity).
209.
Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Act 2000 asp 4 (Scottish Act).
210.
Adults with Incapacity (Specified Medical Treatments) (Scotland) Regulations 2002/275 (Scottish SI).
211.
Adults with Incapacity (Specified Medical Treatments) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2002/302 (Scottish SI). Available from: https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https%3A%2F%2Fidp.gla.ac.uk%2Fshibboleth&returnto=https%3A%2F%2Fuk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com%2FDocument%2FI6B936120E42311DAA7CF8F68F6EE57AB%2FView%2FFullText.html%3FskipAnonymous%3Dtrue
212.
Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Act 2000, Code of Practice, 1st July 2002 [Internet]. Available from: https://www.mwcscot.org.uk/law-and-rights/adults-incapacity-act
213.
Mental Capacity Act 2005 c. 9.
214.
Mental Capacity Act 2005 (Independent Mental Capacity Advocates) (General) Regulations 2006/1832.
215.
Code of Practice for the Mental Capacity Act 2005, April 2007. [Internet]. Available from: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.dca.gov.uk/legal-policy/mental-capacity/mca-cp.pdf
216.
Scottish Law Commission. Scottish Law Commission, Report on Incapable Adults, (Scot Law Com No. 151) [Internet]. HMSO; 1995. Available from: http://www.scotlawcom.gov.uk/files/5013/2758/0994/rep151_1.pdf
217.
BMA Guidance for Scotland - Adults with incapacity Scotland April 2009 [Internet]. Available from: https://www.bma.org.uk/advice/employment/ethics/mental-capacity/mental-capacity-scotland-and-ni
218.
Judge approves man’s sterilisation in legal first - BBC News [Internet]. Available from: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23721893
219.
Essex mother fights to sterilise her disabled daughter - BBC News [Internet]. Available from: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-23883063
220.
Sterilisation legal bid withdrawn - BBC News [Internet]. Available from: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13147612
221.
Coombes R. Ashley X: a difficult moral choice. BMJ. 2007 Jan 13;334(7584):72–73.
222.
UK aid helps to fund forced sterilisation of India’s poor | World news | The Guardian [Internet]. Available from: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/apr/15/uk-aid-forced-sterilisation-india
223.
Project Prevention - Children Requiring a Caring Community [Internet]. Available from: http://www.projectprevention.org/
224.
Charity offers UK drug addicts £200 to be sterilised - BBC News [Internet]. Available from: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-11545519
225.
Laurie GT, Harmon S, Dove ES, Mason JK, McCall Smith A. Mason & McCall Smith’s law & medical ethics [Internet]. 11th edn. [Oxford]: Oxford University Press; 2019. Available from: https://ezproxy.lib.gla.ac.uk/login?url=https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/he/9780198826217.001.0001
226.
Jackson E. Medical law: text, cases, and materials. Fourth edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2016.
227.
Brown J. Scotland and the Abortion Act 1967: historic flaws, contemporary problems. Juridical Review [Internet]. 2015;2015(2):135–155. Available from: https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https%3A%2F%2Fidp.gla.ac.uk%2Fshibboleth&returnto=https%3A%2F%2Fuk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com%2FDocument%2FI935360A00B1211E5A7DEE1FD78849580%2FView%2FFullText.html%3FskipAnonymous%3Dtrue
228.
Neal M. When conscience isn’t clear: Greater Glasgow Health Board v Doogan and Another [2014] UKSC 68. Medical Law Review. 2015 Dec;23(4):668–682.
229.
Sheldon S. The Decriminalisation of Abortion: An Argument for Modernisation. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies. 2016 Jun;36(2):334–365.
230.
McGuinness S, Thomson M. Medicine and Abortion Law Complicating the Reforming Profession. Medical Law Review. 2015 Jun 1;23(2):177–199.
231.
Palmer S. Abortion and human rights. European Human Rights Law Review [Internet]. 2014;2014(6):596–605. Available from: https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https%3A%2F%2Fidp.gla.ac.uk%2Fshibboleth&returnto=https%3A%2F%2Fuk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com%2FDocument%2FI8F3126807C6D11E4B490925E6739F560%2FView%2FFullText.html%3FskipAnonymous%3Dtrue
232.
McGuinness S. Law, Reproduction, and Disability: Fatally ‘Handicapped’? Medical Law Review. 2013 Jun 1;21(2):213–242.
233.
Scott R. Interpreting the disability ground of the Abortion Act. Cambridge Law Journal [Internet]. 2005;64(2):388–412. Available from: https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https%3A%2F%2Fidp.gla.ac.uk%2Fshibboleth&returnto=https%3A%2F%2Fuk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com%2FDocument%2FIFB3AF520E72A11DC88EB9BE684C867E2%2FView%2FFullText.html%3FskipAnonymous%3Dtrue
234.
Swift K, Robson M. Why Doctors Need Not Fear Prosecution for Gender-Related Abortions. Journal of Criminal Law [Internet]. 2012;76(4):348–358. Available from: http://ezproxy.lib.gla.ac.uk/login?url=http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?public=false&handle=hein.journals/jcriml76&id=376
235.
Scott R. Risks, Reasons and Rights: The European Convention on Human Rights and English Abortion Law. Medical Law Review. 2015 Nov 6;1–33.
236.
Burin AK. Beyond Pragmatism: Defending the ‘Bright Line’ of Birth. Medical Law Review [Internet]. 2014;22. Available from: https://ezproxy.lib.gla.ac.uk/login?url=https://plus.lexis.com/api/document/collection/uk/id/5DW2-S201-DYJF-0476-00000-00?context=1001073&identityprofileid=32QDCK57563
237.
Neal M. Devolving abortion law. Edinburgh Law Review [Internet]. 2016;20(3):399–404. Available from: https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https%3A%2F%2Fidp.gla.ac.uk%2Fshibboleth&returnto=https%3A%2F%2Fuk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com%2FDocument%2FIB490F6B0769611E6890FF24C4AB7456E%2FView%2FFullText.html%3FskipAnonymous%3Dtrue
238.
Rosamund Scott. Risks, reasons and rights: the European Convention on Human Rights and English abortion law. Medical law review [Internet]. 2016;24(1):1–33. Available from: https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https%3A%2F%2Fidp.gla.ac.uk%2Fshibboleth&returnto=https%3A%2F%2Fuk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com%2FDocument%2FI42050760D6A211E5A668A3518D52AAFC%2FView%2FFullText.html%3FskipAnonymous%3Dtrue
239.
Abortion Act 1967 c. 87.
240.
Offences Against the Person Act 1861 c. 100.
241.
Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929 c. 34.
242.
Abortion (Sex-Selection) Bill 2014-15 (Private Member’s Bill) UK Parliament [Internet]. Available from: http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2014-15/abortionsexselection.html
243.
Reproductive Health (Access to Terminations) Bill 2016-17 — UK Parliament [Internet]. Available from: https://services.parliament.uk/bills/2016-17/reproductivehealthaccesstoterminations.html
244.
Abortion (Foetus Protection) Bill [HL] 2017-19 — UK Parliament [Internet]. Available from: https://services.parliament.uk/bills/2017-19/abortionfoetusprotection.html
245.
R v Bourne [1939] 1 KB 687.
246.
Paton v BPAS [1979] 1 QB 276.
247.
Paton v United Kingdom (1981) 3 EHRR 408 (ECHR).
248.
C v S [1988] QB 135.
249.
C v S [1987] 1 All ER 1230.
250.
Kelly v Kelly [1997] 2 FLR 828.
251.
Kelly v Kelly [1997] SLT 896 CS (IH).
252.
Jepson v Chief Constable of West Mercia Police Constabulary [2003] EWHC 3318.
253.
VO v France application no 53924/00 8 July 2004 (ECHR).
254.
A and Others v Ireland (25579/05) (2011) 53 EHRR. 13.
255.
Greater Glasgow and Clyde Health Board v Doogan and Another [2014] UKSC 68.
256.
Decision not to charge over gender-based abortions was right, DPP says - BBC News [Internet]. Available from: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24430356
257.
Director of Public Prosecutions publishes fuller reasons for decision not to prosecute doctors over abortion case [Internet]. Available from: http://cps.gov.uk/news/latest_news/dpp_abortion_case_fuller_reasons/index.html
258.
Doctor to appear in court in UK’s first gender abortion prosecution - Telegraph [Internet]. 2014. Available from: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/11217504/Doctor-to-appear-in-court-in-UKs-first-gender-abortion-prosecution.html
259.
CPS decision to stop private prosecutions of doctors charged with abortion offences - CPS News Brief [Internet]. Available from: http://blog.cps.gov.uk/2015/03/cps-decision-to-stop-private-prosecutions-of-doctors-charged-with-abortion-offences.html
260.
Abortion law to be devolved to Scottish Parliament [Internet]. Scotland Office; 2015. Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/abortion-law-to-be-devolved-to-scottish-parliament
261.
Scotland offers free abortions to women from Northern Ireland - BBC News [Internet]. Available from: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-41879520?intlink_from_url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/topics/f16883ee-804f-43cd-8bc3-80d0fed59682/abortion&link_location=live-reporting-story
262.
Abortion laws ‘punish sex-crime victims’ - BBC News [Internet]. Available from: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-41756688?intlink_from_url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/topics/f16883ee-804f-43cd-8bc3-80d0fed59682/abortion&link_location=live-reporting-story
263.
Abortion should not be a crime, say Britain’s childbirth doctors | World news | The Guardian [Internet]. Available from: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/sep/22/abortion-decriminalise-crime-britain-childbirth-doctors
264.
Statement from Director of Public Prosecutions on abortion related cases - CPS News Brief [Internet]. Available from: http://blog.cps.gov.uk/2013/10/statement-from-director-of-public-prosecutions-on-abortion-related-cases.html
265.
BBC Radio 4 - Moral Maze, 50 Years of the Abortion Act [Internet]. Available from: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b097c1g3
266.
An Overview of Abortion Laws | Guttmacher Institute [Internet]. Available from: https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/overview-abortion-laws
267.
Scott R. Maternal duties toward the unborn? Soundings from the law of tort. Medical Law Review [Internet]. 8. Available from: http://ezproxy.lib.gla.ac.uk/login?url=http://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/legal/docview/getDocForCuiReq?lni=4K3D-9F80-TWWR-J032&csi=280341&oc=00240&perma=true&elb=t
268.
Laurie GT, Harmon S, Dove ES, Mason JK, McCall Smith A. Mason & McCall Smith’s law & medical ethics [Internet]. 11th edn. [Oxford]: Oxford University Press; 2019. Available from: https://ezproxy.lib.gla.ac.uk/login?url=https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/he/9780198826217.001.0001
269.
Jackson E. Medical law: text, cases, and materials [Internet]. 5th edn. [Oxford]: Oxford University Press; 2019. Available from: https://ezproxy.lib.gla.ac.uk/login?url=https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/he/9780198825845.001.0001
270.
McCluskey v HM Advocate (1989) SLT 175. Times Law Reports.
271.
Burton v Islington Health Authority de Martell v Merton and Sutton Health Authority (1992). All England Law Reports. 1992.
272.
A and B (minors) (by C their mother and next friend) v A Health and Social Services Trust (2010).
273.
HAMILTON v. FIFE HEALTH BOARD.
274.
Montreal Tramways v Leveille [1933] 4 DLR 337.
275.
Watt v Rama [1972] VicRp 40; [1972] VR 353 (14 December 1971).
276.
Campbell TD, McKay AJM. Antenatal Injury and the Rights of the Foetus. The Philosophical Quarterly. 1978 Jan;28(110).
277.
Grubb A, Laing JM. Principles of medical law. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2003.
278.
Thomson EAC. Nasciturus and Delict—Born Yesterday? Scots Law Times [Internet]. 2005;21:121–126. Available from: http://ezproxy.lib.gla.ac.uk/login?url=http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=ID46496F0E72111DA9D198AF4F85CA028
279.
Law Commission. Report on injuries to unborn children (Cmnd 5709) [Internet]. 1974. Available from: https://s3-eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/lawcom-prod-storage-11jsxou24uy7q/uploads/2016/08/LC.-060-REPORT-ON-INJURIES-TO-UNBORN-CHILDREN-ADVICE-TO-THE-LORD-CHANCELLOR-UNDER-SECTION-31E-OF-THE-LAW-COMMISSIONS-ACT-1965.pdf
280.
Scottish Law Commission. Liability for antenatal injury: report on a reference under section 3(1)(e) of the Law Commissions Act 1965. Edinburgh: H.M.S.O.; 1973.
281.
Congenital Disabilities (Civil Liability) Act 1976.
282.
Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 c. 37.
283.
Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008.
284.
McKAY AND ANOTHER v. ESSEX AREA HEALTH AUTHORITY AND ANOTHER [1978 M. No. 2947]. ICLR: King’s/Queen’s Bench Division.
285.
Curlender v. Bio-Science Laboratories (1980) :: :: California Court of Appeal Decisions :: California Case Law :: California Law :: US Law :: Justia.
286.
Turpin v. Sortini :: :: Supreme Court of California Decisions :: California Case Law :: California Law :: US Law :: Justia.
287.
Harbeson v. Parke-Davis, Inc. :: 1983 :: Washington Supreme Court Decisions :: Washington Case Law :: Washington Law :: US Law :: Justia.
288.
Procanik by Procanik v. Cillo :: 1984 :: Supreme Court of New Jersey Decisions :: New Jersey Case Law :: New Jersey Law :: US Law :: Justia.
289.
Harriton v Stephens [2006] HCA 15; (2006) 226 CLR 52; (2006) 226 ALR 391; (2006) 80 ALJR 791 (9 May 2006).
290.
Harris J. The Wrong of Wrongful Life. Journal of Law and Society [Internet]. 1990 Spring;17(1). Available from: https://ezproxy.lib.gla.ac.uk/login?url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/1409957
291.
Feinberg J. Freedom and fulfillment: philosophical essays. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press; 1992.
292.
Scott R. Reconsidering "Wrongful Life” in England after Thirty Years: Legislative Mistakes and Unjustifiable Anomalies. The Cambridge Law Journal [Internet]. 72(1):115–154. Available from: http://ezproxy.lib.gla.ac.uk/login?url=http://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/legal/docview/getDocForCuiReq?lni=57YB-5241-DY08-C13P&csi=374818&oc=00240&perma=true&elb=t
293.
Sheldon S. Only Skin Deep? The Harm of Being Born a Different Colour to One’s Parents. Medical Law Review [Internet]. 19. Available from: http://ezproxy.lib.gla.ac.uk/login?url=http://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/legal/docview/getDocForCuiReq?lni=54G3-MJ21-DYJF-025Y&csi=280341&oc=00240&perma=true&elb=t
294.
Warner KA. Wrongful life goes down down-under. Law Quarterly Review [Internet]. 123:209–212. Available from: https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https%3A%2F%2Fidp.gla.ac.uk%2Fshibboleth&returnto=https%3A%2F%2Fuk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com%2FDocument%2FIB7A3BD61CC4611DBB309A63ACD578CE5%2FView%2FFullText.html%3FskipAnonymous%3Dtrue
295.
Norrie KMcK. Wrongful life in Scots law: no right no remedy. The Juridical review. Edinburgh: W. Green & Sons [etc.]; 1990;205.
296.
Harvey Teff. The Action for ‘Wrongful Life’ in England and the United States. The International and Comparative Law Quarterly [Internet]. Cambridge University PressBritish Institute of International and Comparative LawCambridge University Press; 1985;34(3):423–441. Available from: https://ezproxy.lib.gla.ac.uk/login?url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/759304
297.
Fortin J. Is the ‘wrongful life’ action really dead? Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law. 1987 Sep 1;9(5):306–313.
298.
A. Morris, Severine Saintier. To Be or Not to Be: Is That The Question? Wrongful Life and Misconceptions. Medical Law Review. 2003 Jun 1;11(2):167–193.
299.
Mason JK. Wrongful Life: The Problem of Causation. Medical Law International. 2004 Mar;6(2):149–161.
300.
Priaulx N. The harm paradox: tort law and the unwanted child in an era of choice. London: Routledge-Cavendish; 2007.
301.
Sheldon T. Court awards damages to disabled child for having been born. BMJ. 2003 Apr 12;326(7393):784b–7784.
302.
Lord Slynn of Hadley , Lord Steyn , Lord Hope of Craighead , Lord Clyde and Lord Millett 1999 July 5, 6, 7; Nov. 25(c) Incorporated Council of Law Reporting for England & Wales. McFarlane v Tayside Health Board [1999] 3 WLR 1301. *59 McFarlane and Another Respondents v Tayside Health Board Appellants.
303.
Parkinson v St James and Seacroft University Hospital NHS Trust. All England Law Reports [Internet]. 2001;3. Available from: http://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/legal/docview/getDocForCuiReq?lni=4CSP-4J90-TWP1-6121&csi=274668&oc=00240&perma=true&elb=t
304.
Rees v. Darlington Memorial Hospital NHS Trust [2003] UKHL 52, [2003] 3 WLR 1091, HL.
305.
AD v East Kent Community NHS Trust. All England Law Reports. 2003.
306.
*ABC v St George’s Healthcare NHS Trust and others. All England Reporter [Internet]. Available from: http://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/legal/docview/getDocForCuiReq?lni=5NK6-XP41-DYBP-N15G&csi=274665&oc=00240&perma=true&elb=t
307.
Goodwill v British Pregnancy Advisory Service. All England Law Reports [Internet]. 1996;2. Available from: https://plus-lexis-com.ezproxy.lib.gla.ac.uk/api/document/collection/uk/id/4CSP-4J80-TWP1-612J-00000-00?context=1001073&identityprofileid=32QDCK57563
308.
Emeh v Kensington and Chelsea and Westminster Area Health Authority. All England Law Reports [Internet]. 1984;3. Available from: https://plus-lexis-com.ezproxy.lib.gla.ac.uk/api/document/collection/uk/id/4CSP-49F0-TWP1-61P0-00000-00?context=1001073&identityprofileid=32QDCK57563
309.
Udale v Bloomsbury Area Health Authority. All England Law Reports [Internet]. 1983;2. Available from: http://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/legal/docview/getDocForCuiReq?lni=4CSP-3KV0-TWP1-60X8&csi=274668&oc=00240&perma=true&elb=t
310.
Thake and another v Maurice. All England Law Reports [Internet]. 1986;1. Available from: http://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/legal/docview/getDocForCuiReq?lni=4CSP-3KT0-TWP1-617C&csi=274668&oc=00240&perma=true&elb=t
311.
The New law journal. London: Butterworth;
312.
Anderson v Forth Valley Health Board. 44. Available from: https://plus-lexis-com.ezproxy.lib.gla.ac.uk/api/document/collection/uk/id/4FNG-MXN0-TWW8-X0WT-00000-00?context=1001073&identityprofileid=32QDCK57563
313.
McLelland v Greater Glasgow HB [2001] SLT 446, Ex Div.
314.
Greenfield v Flather and others. All England Reporter [Internet]. Available from: https://plus-lexis-com.ezproxy.lib.gla.ac.uk/api/document/collection/uk/id/4SPK-6KP0-TWP1-70CS-00000-00?context=1001073&identityprofileid=32QDCK57563
315.
Lloyd’s law reports: Medical. London: LLP Professional Pub; 1998;
316.
Cattanach v Melchior [2003] HCA 38. [Internet]. Available from: http://www.vrlaw.com.au/cases/pdfs/200402261614260.Cattanach.PDF
317.
Laura C. H. Hoyano. Misconceptions about Wrongful Conception. The Modern Law Review [Internet]. Wiley; 2002;65(6):883–906. Available from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1097534?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
318.
Chico V. Wrongful Conception: Policy, Inconsistency and the Conventional Award. Medical Law International. 2007 Mar;8(2):139–164.
319.
Maclean A, An Alexandrian approach to the knotty problem of wrongful pregnancy: Rees v Darlington Memorial Hospital NHS Trust in the House of Lords [Internet]. Available from: http://www.bailii.org/uk/other/journals/WebJCLI/2004/issue3/maclean3.html
320.
Scott R. Prenatal Screening, Autonomy and Reasons: The Relationship Between the Law of Abortion and Wrongful Birth. Medical Law Review. 2003 Sep 1;11(3):265–325.
321.
Law Society of Scotland. The journal of the Law Society of Scotland. Edinburgh: Law Society of Scotland; 1995;
322.
Mason, J. J. Unwanted Pregnancy: A Case of Retroversion. Edinburgh Law Review [Internet]. 2000; Available from: https://ezproxy.lib.gla.ac.uk/login?url=https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?public=false&handle=hein.journals/edinlr4&id=197
323.
Mason, J. J. Wrongful Pregnancy, Wrongful Birth and Wrongful Terminology. Edinburgh Law Review [Internet]. 2002; Available from: https://ezproxy.lib.gla.ac.uk/login?url=https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?public=false&handle=hein.journals/edinlr6&id=52
324.
The Juridical review. Edinburgh: W. Green & Sons [etc.];
325.
Walker SEP. Applying the actual/potential person distinction to reproductive torts. Medical Law International. 2014 Mar;14(1–2):3–21.
326.
Witting, C. Physical Damage in Negligence. Cambridge Law Journal [Internet]. 2002; Available from: https://ezproxy.lib.gla.ac.uk/login?url=https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?public=false&handle=hein.journals/camblj61&id=205
