Re F. (in Utero)

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
CourtCourt of Appeal (Civil Division)
Judgment Date1988
    • This document is available in original version only for vLex customers

      View this document and try vLex for 7 days
    • TRY VLEX
34 cases
  • Re M B (Caesarian section)
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 26 March 1997
    ...appeal: see Paton v British Pregnancy Advisory Service TrusteesELR([1979] QB 276), C v SELR ([1988] QB 135) and In re F (in Utero)ELR ([1988] Fam 122). The foetus up to the moment of birth did not have any separate interests capable of being taken into account when a court had to consider a......
  • Bellinger v Bellinger
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 17 July 2001
    ...Lord Slynn said in Fitzpatrick, when considering social issues in particular judges must not substitute their own views to fill gaps. In re F (In Utero) [1998] Fam 122, [1988] 2FLR 307 the Court of Appeal (in a wholly different context), had to consider the legal position of the foetus in a......
  • Re T (an Adult) (Consent to Medical Treatment)
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 30 July 1992
  • Re MB (an Adult: Medical Treatment)
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • Invalid date
    ...Re [1990] 2 AC 1; [1989] 2 WLR 1025; sub nom F v West Berkshire Health Authority [1989] 2 All ER 545. F (In Utero), Re [1988] FCR 529; [1988] Fam 122; [1988] 2 WLR 1288; [1988] 2 All ER 193. Gillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech Area Health Authority [1986] 1 AC 112; [1985] 3 WLR 830; [1985] 3......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
6 books & journal articles
  • Harriton v. Stephens, Waller v. James: wrongful life and the logic of non-existence.
    • Australia
    • Melbourne University Law Review Vol. 30 Nbr. 3, December 2006
    • 1 December 2006
    ...Paton v British Pregnancy Advisory Service Trustees [1979] QB 276, 279 (Baker P); C v S [1988] QB 135, 140 (Heilbron J); Re F (In Utero) [1988] Fam 122, 138 (May LJ); B v Islington Health Authority [1991] QB 638, 644 (Potts J); De Martell v Merton and Sutton Health Authority [1993] QB 204, ......
  • Abortion, Autonomy and Prenatal Diagnosis
    • United Kingdom
    • Social & Legal Studies Nbr. 9-4, December 2000
    • 1 December 2000
    ...value thanthe life of the pregnant woman’. In summarizing the decision of the Commis-sion in Paton, Balcombe LJ in Re F (in utero) [1988] Fam. 122 said that ‘on itstrue construction article 2 is apt only to apply to persons already born andcannot apply to a foetus’ (at 142). In this article......
  • The Law’s Response to Pregnancy and Childbirth: Consistency, Conflict or Compromise?
    • United Kingdom
    • The Modern Law Review Nbr. 65-2, March 2002
    • 1 March 2002
    ...child’ is manslaughter.41 See, for example, Re Dittrick 263 NW 2d 37 (1977); Re A (in utero) (1990) 72 DLR (4th) 722; Re F(in utero) [1988] 2 WLR 1288.March 2002] Pregnancy and ChildbirthßThe Modern Law Review Limited 2002 statutes, or definitions, to protect the fetus, and therefore regula......
  • Court‐Authorised Caesarean Sections — The End of a Trend?
    • United Kingdom
    • The Modern Law Review Nbr. 62-1, January 1999
    • 1 January 1999
    ...per Judge LJ.45 See for example In the Matter of Claire Conroy [1985] 486 A 2d 1209, per Schrieber J.46 [1990] 573 A 2d 1253 (DC CA).47 [1988] Fam 122.48 ibid at 138.49 See also Lisa Miller, ‘Two Patients or One? Problems of Consent in Obstetrics’, (1993) 1 MedicalLaw International, 97 109;......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT