HONG KONG GOVERNMENT SHOULD REVIEW CONSERVATIVE AND DISCRIMINATORY PARENT AND CHILD ORDINANCE - WINNIE CHOW

Marital status should not be the sole criterion for Reproductive Technology, says Winnie Chow, Partner, Hampton, Winter and Glynn

Hong Kong, Friday 24^th June – The Human Reproductive Technology Ordinance is conservative and also potentially discriminatory, since people who wish to have a child using Reproductive Technology can only do so if they are married, according to Winnie Chow, who is a partner at Hampton Winter and Glynn. Chow adds that the Hong Kong Government should review and amend the Ordinance to ensure that the guiding principle, at least as a starting point, is the best interests of the child, and should consider a number of factors in addition to marital status of the parents.

Winnie Chow, who was speaking in a personal capacity on Wednesday at a panel discussion on Reproductive Technology and Surrogacy, hosted by the Hong Kong Academy of Law, said: “I think the assessment should be of the individual or individuals who are to be the parents – and ultimately what will be best for the child.  Why should the law assume that a married couple would make better parents than an unmarried couple – or a single parent or two fathers, or two mothers for that matter? I also believe there are many social and ethical issues to consider. For example, is it discriminatory to allow only married couples to undergo RT procedures? She also drew the contrast between the Ordinance, with the Adoption Ordinance, which allows for single parent adoption.

Chow, who is actively involved in the advancement of family law in Hong Kong and is a member of the Council on Human Reproductive Technology of the Government of the HKSAR, provided an overview of two related Ordinances: Human Reproductive Technology Ordinance, and the Parent and Child Ordinance. She covered topics related to: prohibitions in Reproductive Technology procedures; the Register A (which keeps information on the relevant parties and the child born from RT procedures); and offences if one was to contravene the prohibitions under the Human Reproductive Technology Ordinance. She also discussed issues relating to parentage of a child born from Reproductive Technology procedures under the Parent and Child Ordinance.

Although she believes that marital status should not be the sole criterion when it comes to eligibility for RT, Chow does feel that more should be done to restrict older women from access to fertility services.

“I wonder if there shouldn’t be an upper limit for RT procedures, particularly in view of the recent news that ladies of 66, 67 and even 70 have given birth through the process. It begs many questions: what kind of life will children have when, at birth, their mothers are already in their late 60s or 70s? What is the likelihood of their parents being able to bring them up to adulthood, attend their graduation or wedding, let alone seeing their grandchildren?”