The Challenge of Regulatory Connection

This chapter begins with a discussion of the problem of disconnection (and the process of re-connection). It introduces three key distinctions: one between ‘descriptive’ and ‘normative’ disconnection, a second between ‘productive’ and ‘unproductive’ disconnection, and a third between ‘intelligent’ and ‘unintelligent’ purposive re-connection. It then reviews the way in which the English courts have recently responded to disconnection — with particular reference to the rapidly developing technologies of cell nuclear replacement (CNR), pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD), and...

This chapter begins with a discussion of the problem of disconnection (and the process of re-connection). It introduces three key distinctions: one between ‘descriptive’ and ‘normative’ disconnection, a second between ‘productive’ and ‘unproductive’ disconnection, and a third between ‘intelligent’ and ‘unintelligent’ purposive re-connection. It then reviews the way in which the English courts have recently responded to disconnection — with particular reference to the rapidly developing technologies of cell nuclear replacement (CNR), pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD), and pre-implantation tissue-typing (PTT) — by seeking to reconnect the regulatory framework (namely, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990). It is argued that where interpreters face a case that is not straightforwardly one of unproductive descriptive disconnection, there is a danger that reconnection effected through purposive interpretation might not only fall foul of the principle of congruence but also hinder the need for a reconsideration of the law.