COMMENTARY THE RIGHT TO PROCREATE IS NOT ABORTED:Dickson V. United Kingdom

摘要

The Dickson judgment of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) provides a further opportunity to observe the growing maturity of the right to procreate. The judgment follows on the decision of the Grand Chamber in Evans v. United Kingdom case earlier that year, but has a distinctive value for its understanding of the concept of the right to procreate. The Evans case had developed this concept by establishing that Article 8 entails the 'right to respect for both the decisions to become and not to become a parent'. The Dickson case, however, relates to a different and very specific interpretation of the right to procreate, as a right to realise or control the capacity, opportunity or ability to procreate. It refers to a restriction influencing the 'ability to beget a child' and the ensuing lack of choice to become a parent. The case seems to establish that where there is a desire for a child, there should be an initial opportunity to realise procreation. This distinguishes the judgment from the case of Evans, where fertilisation, and thus an opportunity to procreate, already had been accomplished.