|
|
 |
Where am I now? Lawlink > Law Reform Commission > Publications > Chapter 3 - Law Making and Statutory Provisions
Discussion Paper 11 (1984) - Artificial Conception: Human Artificial Insemination
Chapter 3 - Law Making and Statutory Provisions
I. INTRODUCTION
3.1 This Chapter will provide brief descriptions of legislation on Al already enacted or prepared for enactment by legislatures in Australia and a number of other Western nations. The enacted legislation is noticeably limited in scope, and addresses narrow but important issues. The other legislation is of wider effect and has, at the time of writing, failed to receive the approval of the legislatures to which it is directed, At the end of this Chapter we offer some comment on these facts because they are related to the value and justification of this discussion paper itself.
II. THE AUSTRALIAN POSITION
A. Existing New South Wales Legislation
3.2 The Artificial Conception Act, 1984 was enacted in February 1984 and received Royal Assent on 5 March 1984. Its substantive provisions took effect on I August 1984.
3.3 As mentioned in paragraph 1.24 the Artificial Conception Act, 1984 is a self-contained statute. It is a measure of major importance, being the first direct legislative statement on artificial conception and addressing an urgent problem, namely the paternity and the legal status of AID and IVF children born as a result of the use of donated sperm. Its policy reflects the principles underlying section 5 of the Uniform Parentage Act of 1973 of the United States which is discussed in paragraphs 3.20 and 3.21. In paragraph 1.16 we indicated that the doubtful legal status of children affected by the Act has been under consideration by the Standing Committee of Attorneys General for at least four years.
3.4 The Act contains six brief sections. The effect of section 5 is inter alia, that when a married woman gives birth to a child as a result of All) with her husband’s consent, the husband is presumed to have caused the pregnancy and to be the father of the child. The semen donor is presumed not to be the father and not to have caused the pregnancy. These presumptions are irrebuttable.
3.5 The Act provides for retrospectivity to AID children born at any time, and extends to “de facto relationships”. In the case of an AID child born to all unmarried woman the same presumption as is described above, applies to the donor. A cognate Act was enacted at the same time for the purpose of dealing with presumptions of paternity that could arise in cases where a husband has not consented to the wife’s AID. This is called the Children (Equality of Status) Amendment Act, 1984.
B. Existing Commonwealth Legislation
1. Family Law Act 1975
3.6 Section 4 of the Family Law Amendment Act 1983 introduced a new section 5A into the 1975 Act in November 1983. This section to which we referred in paragraph 1.23, provides inter alia, that a child born to a married woman as a result of AID to which the husband has consented shall “be deemed to be a child of” the husband, and of the marriage. This legislation does not extend to “de facto relationships” and the deeming is only for the purposes of the Family Law Act, 1975.
2. Marriage Act 1961
3.7 Clause 22 of the Marriage Amendment Bill, 1984 (introduced into the Senate on 4 April 1984 by the Attorney General) provides for the amendment of the Marriage Act 1961 by the insertion of a new section 91A. The effect of this amendment will be to deem a child born to a married woman who received AID “ for all purposes to be the legitimate child of the woman” and her husband if the law of the relevant state requires the child to be treated as his child.
3.8 This new section does not have retrospective effect, and if we may use non-technical language, applies to Australian marriages. The legislation is designed to complement state legislation so that the combined effect will be to regulate the paternity of AID children under all the laws applicable in the state concerned both State and Federal. However, this will not necessarily eliminate the possibility that difficult questions of law could stem from references to legitimacy in the Marriage Act 1961, or the possibility that the concept of illegitimacy may have some residual legal effect in New South Wales despite the Children (Equality of Status) Act, 1976.
C. Existing, Presented and Recommended Victorian Legislation
1. General
3.9 The Status of Children (Amendment) Act 1984 and the Infertility (Medical Procedures) Bill 1984 were both introduced by the Victorian Government into the Upper House in late March 1984. The first has been enacted and received Royal Assent on 15 May 1984. It commenced on 1 August 1984. The second was blocked in the Upper House and its further consideration was effectively adjourned until the following parliamentary session (which commenced on 4 September 1984), so that “all community views could be taken into account.”1
2. Status of Children (Amendment) Act 1984
3.10 It should be noted here that this Act also reflects the draft legislation that has for some time been under consideration by the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General.2 It clarifies the legal status of children born following AID, and children born following IVF when donated gametes (sperm or ova or both) have been used. The Act contains five sections and uses similar language to the Artificial Conception Act, 1984. It attributes paternity of an AID (and an IVF) child in the same fashion as the latter Act.
3. Infertility (Medical Procedures) Bill 1984
3.11 As introduced into the Victorian Parliament, the Bill contained an extensive regulatory procedure for the performance of IVF and the use of donated gametes in IVF. It also contained a number of provisions regulating aspects of AI, for example, a procedure whereby a hospital may seek Ministerial approval for the performance of AI3(in contrast with the IVF provisions, the Bill did not restrict the performance of AI to approved hospitals).4 The Bill also provided that a person carrying out AI in a hospital (whether or not an “approved hospital”), or a medical practitioner who carries out Al, must provide to a (Government register details of the sperm donor and of any resulting child.5 Another provision forbade the mixing of semen from more than one man both in AI and IVF.6 The Bill was prepared following the recommendations of the Victorian Committee in its Report on Donor Gametes in IVF of August 1983. It is significant that the report made no recommendations specifically directed to AI, and confined its recommendations to IVF. Further the Committee’s terms of reference do not mention AI directly, although they do empower the Committee to make recommendations upon “related matters”.
3.12 The Infertility (Medical Procedures) Bill 1984 in its original form contained 27 clauses and provided three principal forms of regulation of IVF:
- First, as mentioned above the limitation of the practice of IVF to approved hospitals.
- Secondly, strict limitation of the persons permitted to perform IVF, and of the persons permitted to be made pregnant by IVF embryos (married women and women in bona fide de facto marriages).7 Separate regulation was provided for each of a variety of cases including those where the gametes are derived from the married couple, and those where the sperm is donated, the egg is donated, the egg is donated or both sperm and egg are donated.8
- Thirdly, the Bill compels careful record keeping and the establishment of registers by both hospitals and the Government. These registers must contain detailed information concerning donors, recipients, donated gametes, and children born from the procedure.9 They are to be accessible to certain persons.10
4. Infertility (Medical Procedures) Bill (No.2) 1984
3.13 Upon its reintroduction into the Upper House in October 1984, the Bill contained a number of amendments and new provisions. It was renamed the Infertility (Medical Procedures) Bill (No.2). In the Second Reading Speech the following statements were made:
In response to a number of submissions, in particular from the Women’s Advisory Council to the Premier, the Government has decided to extend the scheme of the legislation to the procedure of artificial insemination ... The Bill as revised, prohibits the carrying out of artificial insemination by persons other than medical practitioners. In addition it requires the couple, and any other participant in artificial insemination procedures to undertake Counselling, as specified by the Minister.11
Other relevant events had transpired in the intervening period including the completion by the Victorian Committee in August 1984 of another report on IVF entitled Report on the Disposition of Embryos Produced by in Vitro Fertilisation. This report contained recommendations for the regulation in Victoria of a number of activities, including the freezing of embryos in IVF programs, research on embryos created in IVF programs, and Surrogate motherhood arrangements.
3.14 The Bill was passed by the Upper House in October 1984 with further amendments. One of these effected an exclusion of women in de facto marriage relationships from entitlement to join IVF programs, effectively restricting IVF to legally married women. On 2 November 1984 the Bill was passed by the Lower House of the Victorian Parliament. As passed, it provides a system of regulation in Victoria of IVF, AI and Surrogate motherhood arrangements. It is the first statute of its kind in Australia, if not the Western world.
D. Recommended Queensland Legislation
3.15 In February 1983, the Queensland Cabinet created a Special Committee to enquire into the laws relating to artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization and other related matters. The Commitee, under the Chairmanship of Justice Demack reported on 1 March 1984.12 The report makes recommendations for legislation on AID.13 It is, however, apparent that the medical practice of AI in Queensland is conducted on a different basis from New South Wales. For example, it appears that no public hospital in Queensland performs AID14 and that “in the private sector treatment by AID is largely through the Queensland Fertility Group”,15 which appears to be a group of Brisbane medical practitioners who have established a central sperm bank which they use for their respective practices and which is also available to other practitioners throughout Queensland.16 Some Queensland country practitioners obtain sperm from Melbourne.17 The report contains no indication of the numbers of children born in Queensland as a result of AID, but our inquiries of Queensland practitioners lead us to believe that the numbers may be small, perhaps not more than 50 in 1983.18 The Queensland Report is not accompanied bv draft legislation.
E. Presented and Recommended South Australian Legislation
3.16 In January 1984, a Working Party established some three months earlier by the Minister of Health presented to the Minister its report on In Vitro Fertilization and Artificial Insemination by Donor. The two members of the Working Party, which was intra-governmental, were respectively officers of the Health Commission and the Attorney-General’s Department. The report contained 25 recommendations for government action on AI, IVF, surrogate motherhood, privacy and the freezing and use of human gametes.
3.17 To the extent that the recommendations applied to AI they advised legislation to clarify the legal status of AID children, the adoption of guidelines for AID practice in South Australia, confidentiality of information about participants in AID programmes (and resulting children), practices for selection of semen donors and the use of consent forms. On 7 August 1984 the Family Relationships Act Amendment Bill 1984 was introduced into the South Australian Legislative Council. The Bill contains provisions in relation to paternity and maternity that have a similar effect to those of the Victorian Status of Children (Amendment) Act 1984.
F. Other Australian States and Territories
3.18 In June 1983, the Minister for Health in Western Australia announced the formation of an ethics committee to consider the issues arising from in vitro fertilization. The Tasmanian Health Minister created a Committee of Inquiry on 16 July 1984 with terms of reference similar to those of the Victorian Committee.19
III. THE INTERNATIONAL POSITION
A. Presented European Legislation
3.19 The Council of Europe published in March 1979 Draft Recommendation on Artificial Insemination of Human Beings.20 The Council had approved a model code of laws on transplantation of body parts in the previous year from which it had excluded sperm and ova. The draft laws on AI were designed to fill the gap, but have not been approved by the Ministers of the Council of Europe which has over 20 member nations. According to the explanatory report which accompanied the draft, “very few member States possess legal provisions on the subject, and those which exist deal only with the problem of affiliation”.21 The Draft Recommendation contained seven rules. Some of the most significant made the following provisions:
- That human artificial insemination should be administered only “on the responsibility of a physician”.
- Semen must be carefully screened to avoid danger to the health of the recipient woman and the future child.
- The identity of the semen donor, the recipient and (if she is married) her husband, must be kept secret
- Where the woman is married and her husband consents to the AID, the child shall be their legitimate child.
- Payment to semen donors should be forbidden, except for reimbursement of expenses.
- AI should be administered only when it is considered that the welfare of the child is ensured.
B. Existing United States Legislation
3.20 In 1973 the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws approved the Uniform Parentage Act which was recommended for adoption by all states, and in 1974 was approved by the American Bar Association. Section 5 regulates the legitimacy and family status of the AID child and, on the basis that the insemination is performed “under the supervision of a licensed physician”, provides that a consenting husband is to be regarded by law as the natural father and the donor is not to be regarded as the natural father. The consent must be written and kept in scaled confidential files in the state health department along with details of the acts of insemination certified by the physician, to be available only on a court order “for good cause shown”.22
3.21 By 1984, 25 states had enacted statutes “governing artificial insemination”.23 The only state statute that pre-dated the Uniform parentage Act of 1971 was the 1971 statute of Arkansas. The number of states that have closely followed the Uniformed Parentage Act is not clear. We were told in February 1984 by the draftsman of the Act that it “has now been adopted by thirteen States”.24 An article by Jensen in 1982 claimed that 20 states had to that time passed AI legislation and that those states varied widely in their treatment of artificial insemination.25 Jensen’s article summarised the statutory variations. An article by G.P. Smith II and R. Iraola suggests that most of the state statutes limit the practice of AID to married women.26 The variations in approach provide food for thought for law-makers concerned to regulate AI in a federation such as Australia.
C. Recommended United Kingdom Legislation
3.22 No legislation on AI has yet been enacted in the United Kingdom, although the practice is widespread. In 1982 and 1983 four substantial official Inquiries were commenced respectively by the Government, the Medical Research Council (MRC), the British Medical Association (BMA), and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG) into aspects of artificial conception. The Committees have all reported.27 The Government Inquiry was sponsored by the Department of Health and Social Security, the Scottish and Welsh and Northern Ireland Offices, the Department of Education and Science, and the Lord Chancell of Department. A Committee of 16 members was established, chaired by Mrs.(now Dame) Mary Warnock. The terms of reference include the words:
To consider recent and potential developments in medicine and science related to human fertilisation and embryology .... 28
The Committee’s report was made on 26 June 1984 and presented to the United Kingdom Parliament in July 1984. The Committee’s recommendations relating to AI may be summarised as follows:
- AID should be available on an organised basis under the control of a statutory licensing authority. Persons providing AID services should be licensed by the authority, and the services should be available only to infertile couples (United Kingdom Report, paragraph 4.16).
- Good practice requires that written consent of both partners should be given before AID treatment begins (United Kingdom Report, paragraph 4.21).
- There should be a limit of 10 children who can be fathered by one donor (United Kingdom Report, paragraph 4.26).
- A central government register comprising the National Health Service numbers of semen donors should be established and clinics should check the National Health Service numbers of all donors against that register (United Kingdom Report, paragraph 4.26).
- Semen donors should be given only their expenses (United Kingdom Report, paragraph 4.27).
- The AID child should be treated by law as the legitimate child of its mother and her consenting husband (United Kingdom Report, paragraph 4.17).
- Semen donors should by law have no parental rights or duties to the child (United Kingdom Report, paragraph 4.22).
- The law should presume that the husband has consented to AID unless the contrary is proved (United Kingdom Report, paragraph 4.24).
IV. COMMENTS ON LAW MAKING
3.23 Our examination of the recommendations of official inquiries and of legislation enacted and proposed, in places other than New South Wales has led us to the view that much care is required in the formation of law-making proposals. The practice of AI is well established in New South Wales and has been moulded in recent years by hospital procedures, professional medical standards, the economics of medical treatment, social attitudes and public demand. The same influences will not necessarily apply, or if they do, have the same result, in other communities. It is therefore necessary to have regard not only to the ma or issues and problems raised by artificial conception, but to the circumstances of the Community in which it is practised. For example, the Warnock Committee in Britain his recommended the establishment of a central register of donor information related to the National Health Service. This may afford means of ensuring anonymity for donors that cannot be matched in Australia. In the United States there exists a tradition of commerce in human tissues (blood, semen and other tissues) which is plainly not matched either in Australia or Britain, and which may well have a strong influence on legislators in that country when considering laws on biomedical subjects. Other examples could be readily given.
3.24 We conclude that the interests of each community require a distinction to be drawn between proposals that are suited to the special requirements of that community and proposals that are directly related to matters of principle. If the view is taken that many of the issues raised by Al (and other forms of artificial conception, for example IVF) are of national concern and require a national approach can this be reconciled with suggestions that the statutory solutions of other states may not be acceptable in New South Wales? One answer is that a different kind of law should be devised if it is to emanate from a federal source, or is intended to have uniform application. Such a law may have to paint with a broader brush so as to accommodate differences in circumstances and practices from one state to another. Many minor questions arise concerning AI and the answers may vary from place to place depending on local practice, for example, whether there is a need to be concerned with mixing semen, or whether a donor should be supplied with personal details of possible recipients of his semen.29 If a statutory answer is given by one state to all such questions, the statute may be irrelevant, or even objectionable in another. However, the problem of suitability of proposals for a particular state can be raised by some major issues, for example, the issue whether the performance of artificial insemination should be legally prohibited by all persons other than, say, medical practitioners.
3.25 The problem mentioned in the preceding sentence can be well illustrated by a recommendation in the Queensland Report namely:
It should be made an offence for any person to administer AID unless he is a registered medical practitioner or acts subject to the direction and ... control of a registered medical practitioner.30
The Queensland Committee had earlier argued for this approach and said:
The fact that evasions of the law may occur or even readily occur is not a decisive reason for refraining from enacting and attempting to enforce the law.31
The Queensland recommendation could be questioned on the basis of principle as well as for practical reasons. It could be objectionable, for example, to those who believe strongly in personal autonomy and the right of adult, competent persons to make their own decisions, such as a married couple using their own method of conception. Others take the view that the law has no right to interfere with certain areas of private life. Others believe that if a law runs the risk of being widely ignored, it should be rejected on the ground that respect for the institution of law is thereby weakened. The possibility of conflicting principles and opinions on this subject suggests that a balanced decision must be made before legislation is enacted.
3.26 Returning to our comments in paragraph 3.23, we observe that if the Queensland recommendation described above were implemented in Western Australia, it might according to information supplied to us of Western Australian AI practice, convert a widespread, acceptable, government-permitted procedure into criminal offence. This is due to the geographic distances that characterise that state. We have been advised that the Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital of Perth has established the Reproductive Medical Research Centre which is a major supplier of frozen sperm to medical practitioners and other persons throughout the state. We are also advised that the Centre routinely sends sperm directly to women who have been introduced by a referring doctor.32 This happens because some women live too far away from their doctors for regular visits, and others prefer to avoid using the services of their normal doctor in AID. After an initial visit to a Perth specialist, such women will arrange for semen to be sent direct. The insemination, following medical instruction already received, will be self-administered or administered by the husband.33 Thus the enactment of a statutory prohibition as recommended, could in the opinion of some, result in an unjustified interference with a well- established and desirable therapeutic procedure. The problem could, of course, be solved if the statute were to envisage some modification of the requirement of “direction and control” by a medical practitioner, and was framed so as to permit administration of AlD under the direction or general supervision of a medical practitioner.
3.27 Our inquiries at present indicate that Al is, and has for some years been efficiently practised in New South Wales by registered medical practitioners, is well as public hospitals. Further, our inquiries indicate that not all AID clinics in hospitals have the necessary means of learning of the ultimate consequences of an AID pregnancy. AID and AIH are, typically, treated is specialist activities. Frequently the patient will return to her own gynaecologist or general practitioner after successful AID at a specialist clinic. This is a particular feature of a hospital such is Royal Newcastle Hospital which serves a large country area and attracts patients front outlying districts. Finally, we were informed without exception, by all clinics and practitioners that the mixing of semen obtained from more than one man is not practised and never his been practised by them. Indeed, most stated that such a procedure is objectionable. Some said that their reasons for objection are based on scientific grounds such as tissue incompatibility:34 others on psychological grounds, namely that a husband who might wish to be involved in “mixing” has plainly not accepted or “come to terms with” his infertility. We therefore conclude, for reasons more fully given elsewhere that the unquestioned adoption in New South Wales of the AI provisions in the Victorian Infertility (Medical Procedures) Bill 1984 (see paragraphs 3.11-3.14) could bring about circumstances where statutory regulation of AI will be aimed at nonexistent practices, and as well could impose upon medical practitioners statutory obligations in relation to record keeping with which they may be unable to comply. The subject of “mixing” is further discussed in Chapter 11 and record keeping in Chapter 12. We have already mentioned that the Victorian Committee’s recommendations were limited to IVF.
3.28 Our conclusion is that a national approach to law-making on AI and the ideal of uniformity of law do not, in principle, rule out an approach that envisages variations between the laws of states and territories. The variations will be a function of the detail and particularity of the statutes themselves, as well as other considerations. An example, in the field of bio-medicine, is the human tissue transplant legislation of the United States, the Anatomical (Gift Act of 1968, which was prepared by the Uniformity Commissioners in 1968 and has since been enacted by every one of the American states.35 On the other hand, the Uniform Percentage Act of 1973 has, as we saw in paragraph 3.21, led to wide diversity from state to state.
3.29 At the beginning of this chapter we drew attention to the limited scope of the recently enacted Australian legislation on AI. We have also made reference in the Chapter to the contents of proposed legislation of wider scope, such as the Draft Recommendation of the Council of Europe and the infertility (Medical Procedures) Bill 1984 of Victoria. The European Draft Recommendation has not received approval of the Committee of Ministers. Even if the European Draft Recommendation were accepted by the Ministerial Committee and became an approved instrument of the Council of Europe, it would stand as a model code, to become law only as adopted by individual nations.
3.30 The passage of the enacted Australian legislation has been neither rapid nor easy. prior to 1984 the subjects dealt with by the legislation (principally paternity of the AID child) had for some years been recurrent items on the agenda of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General at its meetings (see paragraph 1.17). It is significant that the Uniform Parentage Act of 1973 of the United States which is similarly limited in scope, has received cautious Ind varied acceptance since its promulgation (see paragraph 3.21). There may be many factors contributing to this legislative hesitation. Whatever they are, we do not find it surprising that parliaments proceed slowly to legislate on an historic alteration in the means of human conception. Step-by-step law-making may be the best modus operandi when the law is directed to circumstances that are unprecedented.
3.31 Finally we comment that we are very much aware of the rapidity of development and change in biomedicine. This fact suggests that legislation should, if possible, be sufficiently adaptable to accommodate advances in technology as they arise.
Footnotes
1. The Age (Melbourne), 12 April 1984, 16-1 see also Parliamentary Debates (Victoria), Legislative Council, 21 March 1984, p.1935.
2. Status of Persons (Artificial Conception) Bill, 1982. prepared for the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General by the Department of the Attorney General, New South Wales. It should also be noted that the Victorian Act goes further than the NSW Act, which is confined to paternity of the child. The Victorian Act provides for the attribution of maternity to a married woman who gives birth to a child following implantation of an IVF embryo where the egg is donated by another woman.
3. Infertility (Medical Procedures) Bill 1984 (Vic.), cll 6(l), (7).
4. Id., cll.5(2), 9(2), 11(2) and 12(2), cf. cIL6,17.
5. Id., cll.15, 17.
6. Id., cll.23.
7. Id., cll.5(2), 9(2), 11(2), and 12(2).
8. Id., cll.9,10,11 and 12 respectively.
9. Id., cll.15.
10. Id., cll.18.
11. Second Reading Draft Speech of Victorian Parliament as supplied to us on 2nd November 1984; see also Infertility (Medical Procedures) Bill (No.2) 1984 (Vic.), cll.17, 18.
12. Report of the Special Committee Appointed by the Queensland Government to Enquire into the Laws Relating to Artificial Insemination, In Vitro Fertilization, and Other Related Watters (March 1984), vol.1.
13. Id., pp.142-146.
14. Id., at p.32 (confirmed by telephone with Dr. J. Hynes of the Queensland Fertility Group on 7 June 1984).
15. Id., p.31.
16. Ibid.
17. Sperm is obtained from the Melbourne Family Medical Centre, but we are informed by the Director of the MFMC, Dr. Gab Kovacs that this is no longer the case.
18. Information supplied by Director of the Queensland Fertility Group, Dr John Hennessey, other members of the Group, and the Head of the Reproductive Biology Group, Department of Veterinary Anatomy, University Of Queensland, as well as six gynaecologists practising in country centres in Queensland.
19. The West Australian, 3 June 1983, p.12 and The Mercury (Hobart), 4 August 1984, p.4. The Tasmanian Committee is called The Committee to Investigate Artificial Conception and Related Matters.
20. Council of Europe, Draft Recommendation on Artificial Insemination of Human Beings, DIR/JUR (79) 2.
21. Id., Draft Explanatory Report Introduction, cl.4.
22. Uniform Parentage Act. s.5(a).
23. L.B. Andrews, “The Stork Market: the Law of the New Reproduction Technologies” (1984) 7 American Bar Association Journal 50.
24. Letter to the Commission dated 20 February 1984 from Professor Harry D. Krause who drafted the Uniform Parentage Act for the Conference of Commissioners (NCCUSSL).
25. B.L. Jensen, “Artificial Insemination and the Law” (1982) Brigham Young University Law Review 935, at pp.952-953.
26. G.P. Smith II and R. Iraola, “Sexuality Privacy and the New Biology” (1984) 67 Marquette Law Review 263, at pp.269-270.
27. Medical Research Council: An Advisory Group of the MRC issued a statement on Research Related to Human Fertilization and Embryology in November 1982; British Medical Association: the Working Group on IVF was set up by the Council of the BMA in March 1982, and gave an Interim Report on Human IVF and Embryo Replacement and Transfer, which was published on 14 May 1983 in the British Medical Journal (the group added an addendum to the Interim Report on the subject of AID): and Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists: the Ethics Committee of the RCOG reported on IVF and Embryo Replacement and Transfer in March 1983.
28. Letter to the Advisory Committee from the Medical Secretary of the Committee dated 17 December 1982.
29. Infertility (Medical Procedures) Bill 1984 (Vic.), cl.16(2).
30. See note 12 above, p.143, para.3(i).
31. Id., p.107. We are led to the conclusion that Queensland legislation may appear in response to the Committee’s recommendations but may not necessarily provide an adequate model for New South Wales, because of differences in AID practice and experience in the two States.
32. Western Mail, 16-17 August 1983, p.14, and telephone conversation with Mr. John Beilby, Scientific Officer in charge of the sperm bank, on 31 May 1984.
33. Ibid.
34. C. Wood et al. (eds.), Artificial Insemination by Donor (1980), p.71 (article by C. Matthew and authorities there cited).
35. Handbook of the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws and Proceedings of the Annual Conference Meeting in its Eighty-Seventh Year (New York, July 28 - August 4 1978).
|
