Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-l82ql Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-01T20:27:31.999Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Purposive Interpretation and the March of Genetic Technology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 November 2003

Get access

Extract

Thirty years ago the Australian High Court described the law as “marching with medicine but in the rear and limping a little” (Mount Isa Mines v. Pusey (1970) 125 C.L.R. 383). Today this maybe an apt description of the lag between law and recent advances in genetic technology. In R. (Quintavalle) v. Secretary of State for Health [2003] UKHL 13, [2003] 2 W.L.R. 692 the applicants asked the court to declare whether embryos created by cell nuclear replacement (“CNR”) (a form of human cloning involving an enucleated human egg and a cell from a donor's body) were regulated under the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990, which was passed in an era when embryos were only ever created by fertilisation of an egg by a sperm.

Type
Case and Comment
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge Law Journal and Contributors 2003

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)