{"title":"The rights of donor inseminated children to know their genetic origins in Australia.","authors":"Edwina Anne Schneller","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Twenty years after it was recognised that adopted children have rights to understand their origins, the dawn has finally broken with respect to children conceived as a result of the Assisted Reproductive Technologies (ART), specifically donor insemination (DI). Recipients and practitioners of conception technologies focus their energies and ethical deliberation on the achievement of pregnancy and the successful birth of the child. Law, in contrast, must focus beyond birth to enshrine respect for the rights of the child, who is 'not legally capable of defending [his or her] own future interests.' This article undertakes an assessment of what is in the best interests of a child using empirical studies to ground a position that should be adopted by law in Australia. This article also critically evaluates the current legal position of the various States and Territories with regards to a DI conceived child's rights to know of their form of conception; access to identifying information of their donor; at what age they may access information; the position of DI children born before existing legislation; record-keeping; and finally whether international law grants such children rights. Australian children must enjoy the right in theory and practice to know they were donor conceived and the identity of their donor. It is disappointing that New South Wales, as the most recent State to propose legislation on ART, has not utilised international empirical research on the best interests of DI children or even followed the Infertility Treatment Act 1995 (Vic) which seems to be far more progressive in recognising how best to protect the rights of DI children. The current legal position is chaotic. States and Territories should confer power on the Federal Government to legislate uniform and explicit regulation of ART for the benefit of DI children.</p>","PeriodicalId":80605,"journal":{"name":"Australian journal of family law","volume":"19 3","pages":"222-44"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2005-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"26323750","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Symbiotic relationships: saviour siblings, family rights and biomedicine.","authors":"Belinda Bennett","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>It is now possible to combine the use of preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) and tissue matching to select an IVF embryo that will, after birth, be a compatible tissue donor for an existing individual. This article analyses the ethical issues and the regulatory frameworks that intersect around the creation of tissue compatible children.</p>","PeriodicalId":80605,"journal":{"name":"Australian journal of family law","volume":"19 3","pages":"195-212"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2005-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"26323751","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Desperately seeking donors: the 'saviour sibling' decision in Quintavalle v Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (UK).","authors":"Barbara Ann Hocking, Scott Guy","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The recent House of Lords decision in Quintavalle v Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority has raised difficult and complex issues regarding the extent to which embryo selection and reproductive technology can be used as a means of rectifying genetic disorders and treating critically ill children. This comment outlines the facts of Quintavalle and explores how the House of Lords approached the legal, ethical and policy issues that arose out of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority's (UK) decision to allow reproductive and embryo technology to be used to produce a 'saviour sibling' whose tissue could be used to save the life of a critically ill child. Particular attention will be given to the implications of the decision in Quintavalle for Australian family and medical law and policy. As part of this focus, the comment explores the current Australian legislative and policy framework regarding the use of genetic and reproductive technology as a mechanism through which to assist critically ill siblings. It is argued that the present Australian framework would appear to impose significant limits on the medical uses of genetic technology and, in this context, would seem to reflect many of the principles that were articulated by the House of Lords in Quintavalle.</p>","PeriodicalId":80605,"journal":{"name":"Australian journal of family law","volume":"19 2","pages":"144-52"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2005-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"26380386","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"An exploration of the legal and socio-ethical implications of predictive genetic testing of children.","authors":"Margaret Otlowski","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This article explores the current position in relation to predictive genetic testing of children, highlighting some of the legal and socio-ethical issues and complexities that such testing presents. It evaluates the existing regulatory framework for predictive genetic testing of children in Australia, including the possible role of the Family Court in protecting children from inappropriate testing, and suggests that introducing a more interventionist approach would create its own difficulties. The article also considers a particular issue arising in the context of predictive genetic testing of children which the ALRC/AHEC inquiry canvassed concerning disclosure obligations to insurers. The article argues that creating an exception to established principles of disclosure would mitigate the impact of predictive genetic testing of children and would be consistent with international instruments which seek to protect against unfair genetic discrimination.</p>","PeriodicalId":80605,"journal":{"name":"Australian journal of family law","volume":"18 2","pages":"147-69"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2004-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"26380385","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Looking backwards, looking forwards: judicial and legislative trends in the regulation of surrogate motherhood in the UK and Australia.","authors":"Anita Stuhmcke","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>It has been a quarter of a century since the first reported decision was handed down with respect to surrogate motherhood by a common law court. Since that initial decision Australian jurisdictions and the United Kingdom have seen a plethora of parliamentary inquiries, legislation and case law. This article reviews these historical legal developments in case law and legislation in both Australia and the UK to identify what, if any, trends are occurring in the regulation of surrogacy. It is suggested from this review that there is a trend towards recognising and allowing altruistic surrogacy. This raises issues of practical and theoretical importance in relation to the definition of family and the regulation of surrogacy.</p>","PeriodicalId":80605,"journal":{"name":"Australian journal of family law","volume":"18 1","pages":"13-40"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2004-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"26380382","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Where does a man stand on issues of assisted reproduction, surrogacy, artificial insemination within lesbian relationships and posthumous conception?","authors":"Penelope Beem","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This article takes issues more commonly associated with women: assisted reproduction, surrogacy, artificial insemination within lesbian relationships and posthumous conception and considers what role a man may play in this domain. To this end the article commences with a short scenario of possible life events then traverses the current legal position to examine the extent that the law either facilitates or frustrates a man's desire and ability to fulfill the role of either father or parent in the above situations. The article considers the issues of assisted reproduction technology in both a regulated and an unregulated environment.</p>","PeriodicalId":80605,"journal":{"name":"Australian journal of family law","volume":"18 1","pages":"41-62"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2004-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"26380383","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Limiting access to assisted reproduction: JM v. QFG.","authors":"Anita Stuhmcke","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":80605,"journal":{"name":"Australian journal of family law","volume":"16 3","pages":"245-52"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2002-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"26380381","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Re Evelyn: surrogacy, custody and the Family Court.","authors":"A Stuhmcke","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":80605,"journal":{"name":"Australian journal of family law","volume":"12 3","pages":"297-304"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1998-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"26380380","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Sterilisation of the intellectually disabled: the need for legislative reform.","authors":"J Blackwood","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This article examines the recent decision of the Full Court of the Family Court in Re Marion dealing with the question of sterilisation of intellectually disabled minors and in particular, the question of whether a parent or guardian can lawfully consent to a sterilisation operation upon an intellectually disabled minor or whether court approval is required before such an operation can lawfully be performed. The article goes on to critically examine legislation in force in various Australian jurisdictions concerning involuntary sterilisations and substituted consent as well as legislative reforms that have been proposed in this area.</p>","PeriodicalId":80605,"journal":{"name":"Australian journal of family law","volume":"5 2","pages":"138-70"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1991-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"24944871","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}