{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.019940179461615155, 'fraction_numerical': 0.007976071784646061, 'mean_word_length': 4.54696132596685, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Gametes, consent and points of no return

Disputes over stored embryos are inevitably difficult to resolve, as we have seen in the case of Natalie Evans and Howard Johnston. The Department of Health is currently reviewing the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 following a public consultation in August 2005. In this paper, I will argue that the Act should be amended so that the point of no return for withdrawal of consent to the use of gametes is the creation of an embryo with those gametes (fertilization). By point of no return, I mean the point at which donors/providers should no longer be able to withdraw consent. I will argue that no distinction should be drawn between donors – those who give gametes for others to use for procreative purposes – and providers – those who use their own gametes for their own procreative purposes. I will also look at how egg-sharers (who both donate and provide gametes) should be regarded, and whether an exception should be made for embryo donors.