Legal implications of modern reproductive techniques

  • J. K. Mason
Chapter

Abstract

It is generally stated, albeit with little factual backing, that some 10% of married couples who desire children are unable to have a family by reason of infertility — the underlying cause, whether it be physiological or pathological, being present approximately twice as commonly in the wife as it is in the husband [1]. The longing for children is often intense, and very considerable medical expertise is devoted to the investigation and treatment of the condition. Despite this, no abnormality is discovered in either wife or husband in some 20% of infertile couples.

Keywords

Embryo Transfer Artificial Insemination Legal Implication Surrogate Motherhood Social Father 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
Download to read the full chapter text

References

  1. 1.
    Hull, M.G.R., Joyce, D.N. and Turner, G. (1986) Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 2nd edn, Wright, Guildford.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mason, J.K. and McCall Smith, R.A. (1987) Law and Medical Ethics, 2nd edn., Butterworths, London, p. 136 et seq. Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Craft, I. (1987) When a code catches out the childless. The Times, 24 September, p. 16.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mitchell, G.D. (1983) In vitro fertilisation: the major issues-a comment. J. Med. Ethics, 9, 196.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Singer, P. (1983) Response [to ref. 4 above]. J. Med. Ethics., 9, 198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Leading Article (1987) Values from the Vatican. The Times, 11 March, p. 13.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Knoppers, B.M. (1987) Reproductive technology and international mechanisms of protection of the human person. McGill Law J., 32, 336.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Infertility (Medical Procedures) Act 1984, s. 29 (Victoria).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Human Fertilization and Embryology (M. Warnock, Chairman), Cmnd. 9314 (1984) HMSO, London.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Department of Health and Social Security, Legislation on Human Infertility Services and Embryo Research: A Consultation Paper, Cm 46 (1986) HMSO, LondonGoogle Scholar
  11. Department of Heath and Social Security, Human Fertilization and Embryology: A Framework for Legislation, Cm 259 (1987) HMSO, London.Google Scholar
  12. 11.
    G v. G. 1961 SLT Reps 324.Google Scholar
  13. 12.
    Cusine, D.J. (1977) Artificial insemination with the husband’s semen after the husband’s death. J. Med. Ethics., 3, 163.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 13.
    See, for example Status of Children (Amendment) Act 1984 (Victoria); Artificial Conception Act 1984 (NSW): Artificial Conception Act 1985 (WA).Google Scholar
  15. 14.
    MacLennan v. MacLennan (or Shortland) 1958 SC 105.Google Scholar
  16. 15.
    Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (1979) Artificial Insemination, March 1979.Google Scholar
  17. 16.
    See also McKay v. The Essex Area Health Authority [1982] QB 1166.Google Scholar
  18. 17.
    Warnock, ref. 9 at para 4.26.Google Scholar
  19. 18.
    Infertility (Medical Procedures) Act 1984, s. 20 (Victoria).Google Scholar
  20. 19.
    Trounson, A. (1986) Preservation of human eggs and embryos. Fertil. Steril., 46, 1.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 20.
    Phillips, M. (1984) A testing time. BMA News Rev., 10, (6), 29.Google Scholar
  22. 21.
    Second Report of the Voluntary Licensing Authority (1987) Annex 1, p. 35.Google Scholar
  23. 22.
    Iglesias, T. (1984) In vitro fertilisation: the major issues. J. Med. Ethics, 10, 32; Mason and McCall Smith, ref. 2, p. 49.Google Scholar
  24. 23.
    Trounson, A. (1986) Reported in Institute of Medical Ethics Bulletin, no. 19, October, p. 14.Google Scholar
  25. 24.
    Mason and McCall Smith, ref. 2, p. 57.Google Scholar
  26. 25.
    Del Zio v. Manhattan’s Columbia Presbyterian Medical Center 74 Civ 3588 (SD, NY, 1976), discussed by Terry, N.P. (1986) ‘Alas! poor Yorick’, I knew him ex utero: the regulation of embryo and fetal experimentation and disposal in England and the United States. Vanderbilt Law Rev., 39, 419.Google Scholar
  27. 26.
    Smith, G.P. (1985–86) Australia’s frozen ‘orphan’ embryos: a medical, legal and ethical dilemma. J. Family Law, 24, 27.Google Scholar
  28. 27.
    Brown, H., Dent, M., Dyer, L.M., et al. (1986) Legal rights and issues surrounding con-ception, pregnancy, and birth. Vanderbilt Law Rev., 39, 597.Google Scholar
  29. 28.
    Mason, J.K. (1989) Abortion and the law, in Legal Issues in Reproduction (ed. S.A.M. McLean), Gower, Aldershot.Google Scholar
  30. 29.
    Genesis 16:2.Google Scholar
  31. 30.
    Kennedy, R. (1987) Early triplets for first surrogate grandmother. The Times, 2 October, p. 9.Google Scholar
  32. 31.
    Expression of Dissent A: Surrogacy, p. 87.Google Scholar
  33. 32.
    Sloman, S. (1985) Surrogacy Arrangements Act 1985. New LawJ., 135, 978.Google Scholar
  34. 33.
    1985 The Times, 15 January. Sub nom Re C (A minor) [1985] 2 FLR 846.Google Scholar
  35. 34.
    [1987] 2 All ER 826.Google Scholar
  36. 35.
    Adoption Act 1976, s.7(3).Google Scholar
  37. 36.
    Unreported. See (1987) The Times, 13 March, p.lGoogle Scholar
  38. 37.
    Mason, J.K. and McCall Smith, R.A. (1987) Law and Medical Ethics, 2nd edn, Butterworths, London, pp. 56–57.Google Scholar
  39. 38.
    525 A 2d 1128 (NJ, 1987).Google Scholar
  40. 39.
    537 A 2d 1227 (NJ, 1988).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. K. Mason

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations