`Fertility law against widow'
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.DB, the widow battling to bear a child using her dead husband's sperm, has the law against her, the High Court was told yesterday.
David Pannick, counsel for the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, which has blocked artificial insemination because the husband never gave written consent, said: "Parliament thought the decision by a man to create life after his death is a matter of such ethical complexity and importance that it should only be taken in a formal manner."
He added that Parliament had balanced opposing views over the ethics of fertility treatment by imposing safeguards, the most important of which was written consent. "There should be no room for uncertainty or doubt about what the man was agreeing to." Letters, page 17
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments