Appeal Court judgement in the Hashmi case 23/5/03. By the Public Health Genetics Unit The full judgement points out the specific nature of the licence granted for the Hashmi's case.

In April 2003, three Appeal Court judges announced that they had decided to uphold an appeal by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA). The appeal was against a High Court decision which held that the HFEA did not have the legal authority to allow Raj and Shahana Hashmi to use preimplantation genetic diagnosis to select an embryo that was both unaffected by the genetic disease beta-thalassaemia and a tissue match for their son Zain, who is affected by this disease.

The judges have now released their full judgement. They were unanimous in deciding that the case hinged on the interpretation of two provisions of the 1990 Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act: whether the proposed treatment could be described as providing treatment services "for the purpose of assisting women to carry children", and whether it involved a practice to determine "the suitability of an embryo to be placed in a woman".

The judges decided that these clauses did not have to be interpreted in the very narrow way claimed by the group Comment on Reproductive Ethics, which had brought the case against the HFEA. In the Hashmi case, the couple need assistance in order to have a child that is healthy and a tissue match for Zain; the 'suitability' of the embryo in their case depends on these same characteristics, which would together ensure both the well-being of the new child and of the whole family. It is within the powers of the HFEA, the judges decided, to weigh the ethical issues involved in each licence application and decide whether or not to allow treatment.

In reaching their conclusions, the judges also took account of the 1989 Warnock report and the subsequent White Paper, which led to the 1990 Act. Both mention the potential for the development of treatments with much wider application than simply assisted reproduction for infertile couples. It does not seem reasonable, conclude the judges, for parliament to sanction such research but prohibit its implication in medical practice. The judgement also points out the very specific nature of the licence granted for the Hashmi's treatment: it applies only to their case, and the HFEA has insisted that every case will be considered on its individual merits.

Article courtesy of the Public Health Genetics Unit .

Image credit: Yorgos Nikas