In the recent cryopreservation case of In re JS (A Child)  EWHC 2859 (Fam);  4 WLR 1, the High Court considered the wishes of a terminally ill 14 year old child that her body be cryopreserved upon her death.
The case is one of several which have focused attention on questions about medical and scientific advances not covered or contemplated by existing laws, such as the Human Tissue Act 2004. How should courts, regulatory bodies, policy makers and lawyers respond?
Doughty Street Chambers is convening a panel of speakers, including lawyers involved for different parties in the In re JS case, and from the Human Tissue Authority, to discuss whether the current legal and regulatory framework is keeping up with developments in medicine and science in the 21st century.
The seminar will be of wide appeal to those working in such areas as the Court of Protection, the inherent jurisdiction, health and medical law, regulatory law and related public law areas - among others. To register your interest in attending, please email email@example.com.
Law and Ethics at the Frontiers of Medicine and Science
Date: Wednesday 28 June 2017
Time: 18:30 - 20:00 (Followed by drinks)
Chair: Aswini Weereratne QC, Doughty Street Chambers
- Sarah Bedwell, Director of Regulation, Human Tissue Authority
- Zoë Fleetwood, Dawson Cornwell (who acted for the applicant JS in In re JS)
- Christina Helden, Hempsons (who acted for the NHS Trust in In re JS)
- Kate Beattie, Doughty Street Chambers
Venue: Doughty Street Chambers, London
"It is no surprise that this application is the only one of its kind to have come before the courts in this country, and probably anywhere else. It is an example of the new questions that science poses to the law, perhaps most of all to family law. Faced with such a tragic combination of childhood illness and family conflict, the court must remember that hard cases make bad law, and that natural sympathy does not alter the need for the application to be decided in accordance with established principle, or with principle correctly established."
(Mr Justice Peter Jackson, In re JS, §23)