Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
|Title:||Australia after Cresswell and Chapman: A Legal and Regulatory Paradox, or an Opportunity for Uniformity?|
|Authors:||Mills, Christopher D|
|Affiliation:||Austin Health, Heidelberg, Victoria, Australia|
West Gippsland Health Care Group
Flinders University of South Australia
University of Melbourne;Victorian Liver Transplant Unit, Austin Health, Heidelberg, Victoria, Australia
|Citation:||Journal of law and medicine 2020; 27(3): 741-761|
|Abstract:||Australia, like many overseas jurisdictions, has recognised the need to cope with advancing medical technology and changing community attitudes towards assisted reproductive technology (ART). Despite this, several States in Australia still do not have legislative instruments regulating ART, and those that have legislated have done so in a non-uniform way. In 2018/2019, four cases came before State Supreme Courts, where the female applicants had to endure significant legal battle in order to utilise their late partner's gametes, highlighting the inability of the law to provide an appropriate clinical framework. This article outlines and discusses the current position of Australian States on the utilisation of posthumous gametes and how the recent decisions of the Supreme Courts of New South Wales, Queensland and Western Australia augment the current law and National Health and Medical Research Council Guidelines, and finally, considers how future legislation might account for the potential posthumous utilisation of oocytes.|
|Subjects:||posthumous assisted reproductive technology|
posthumous in vitro fertilisation
|Appears in Collections:||Journal articles|
Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.
Items in AHRO are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.