|
|
 |
Where am I now? Lawlink > Law Reform Commission > Publications > 4. Artificial Conception: The Debate
Discussion Paper 15 (1987) - Artificial Conception: In Vitro Fertilization
4. Artificial Conception: The Debate
I. PUBLIC OPINION
A. Role of Public Opinion
4.1 A well-known essay on the legal enforcement of morality argued that law presupposes an identifiable community morality or sense of what is right and wrong, and that the courts and legislatures should reflect this perception.1 This argument raises the question whether community morality can be identified and measured. Public opinion surveys, media reports and public debate may or may not be a reliable guide, especially with unprecedented biomedical procedures such as IVF and other technological methods of conception and reproduction, such as gamete intra-fallopian transfer (GIFT), uterine flushing and “in vivo fertilization”.
4.2 How much importance should be attributed to public opinion in shaping the law? Some argue that the law should reflect and enforce majority public opinion of what is right or wrong. To do otherwise may be the first step towards moral and social decay.2 Others follow a more libertarian approach: the individual has “a right to choose’’ and as long as his or her activities are not harmful to others, the law should not interfere.3 The lawmaker’s task is to achieve a balance between the public interest and the individual’s claims to liberty and autonomy.
4.3 The new reproductive technologies raise difficult issues. Some people may take the view that legislation is the best means of subjecting scientists and doctors to community values, but others have asserted that lawmakers should be cautious in enacting legislation that rests upon “shifting sands”.4 Where there is no consensus it may be contrary to the public interest to seek the enactment of law. Further, the techniques themselves are constantly changing. This may also be the case with community attitudes as the public becomes more familiar with the techniques. Successful accommodation of such variables in a legal framework, which of its nature assumes stability and predictability, will if it is possible at all require great skill and foresight. An Australian jurist described the task in the following words:
... scientific material is always provisional and is constantly becoming out-of-date, so that yesterday’s truth is today’s error. Unfortunately, however, in the law yesterday’s belief ... becomes authority for today.5
B. Survey Information on IVF
4.4 As a result of the media attention given to IVF since the birth of Louise Brown, named in the American magazine People as one of the 10 most prominent people of the decade,6 some knowledge of IVF and related procedures is widespread in the community.7
4.5 In a survey of the attitudes of 104 Geelong residents to the new reproductive techniques conducted in 1983 the researchers Dr Rowland and Ms Ruffin found that 86 per cent of respondents approved of IVF as a means of enabling an infertile couple to have a child.8 The authors concluded:
In general, community attitudes toward the new reproductive techniques are more positive than might be expected, and are -consistent with the pronatalist attitude in society which stresses the value of children and family.9
4.6 Eight separate national surveys of Australian community attitudes to IVF, conducted by the Roy Morgan Research Centre between July 1981 and April 1987, suggest that some three-quarters of the Australian population approve of IVF as a treatment for infertile couples.10 The poll conducted in June 1984 also disclosed disagreement in the community in relation to the more controversial aspects of IVF. For use of the technique of embryo freezing, 45 per cent of respondents approved, 39 per cent disapproved and 16 per cent needed to know more or were undecided.11 With regard to embryo experimentation and research 32 per cent approved, 54 per cent disapproved and 14 per cent were undecided.12
4.7 Another study of Australian attitudes towards IVF gave similar results. Seventy-seven per cent of respondents approved of IVF for helping married couples who cannot have children. In response to the question concerning embryo freezing 35 per cent approved, 24 per cent disapproved and 41 per cent were undecided. On the question of embryo donation 41 per cent approved, 30 per cent disapproved and 29 per cent were undecided.13 The study also examined the normative values of those who opposed IVF. The study suggests that IVF opponents have a cohesive set of values and beliefs. As a group they tend to be older, more religious and conservative in their attitudes to sexual morality, the “permissive society” and the value of technology. More than three-quarters of this group believed “everything is changing too fast these days”.14
C. Our Approach
4.8 We do not suggest that recommendations for new laws, or that laws generally, should simply mirror public opinion. Public opinion may, however, be significant in relation to law-making on IVF where medical and scientific developments are constantly changing and the desirability of a particular law is not self-evident. On occasions the law could be in advance of public thinking and, by its very enactment, a catalyst for change in public opinion. Whatever direction the law may take, it is important that innovative legislation is not pursued at the expense of straining community tolerance.
II. AN OVERVIEW OF THE PUBLIC DEBATE
A. Introduction
4.9 Article 16 of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights 1948 provides that “men and women of full age, without limitations due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and found a family”. IVF is a technique which enables infertile couples to have a child, and a procreative choice involving resort to that technique may be seen as a private matter for a couple to decide.
4.10 The procedure of IVF, however, involves technological intervention to achieve conception and pregnancy, and that raises social, moral and legal issues. Some of the objections that have been made to IVF are outlined below.
B. Some Objections to IVF
1. Improper Separation of Procreation from Sexual Love
4.11 In vitro fertilization is viewed by some Christians as contrary to the notion of the unitive and generative properties of sexual love.15 According to the Scriptures man and woman are created for each other as “one flesh”16 to satisfy God’s command to be fruitful and multiply”.17 The introduction of biotechnology has, on this approach, interfered with the bodily transmission of life, a sacred province, and degraded human parenthood. As one Christian theologian has said:
... IVF does not merely complete an act of intercourse by transferring semen, after intercourse, to the uterus. It takes the place of intercourse and is necessarily associated with the intervention of other people (scientists) in the conception of a child. In this sense the child comes into being as the end product of a process managed by people other than the parents, rather than as a result of sexual intercourse between husband and wife.18
4.12 By contrast, others view IVF as essentially “human”, because it results in a planned and wanted pregnancy which has been previously denied through infertility.19 The emphasis, in this approach, is on the family unit and how IVF may strengthen and maintain matrimonial harmony. Further, some have difficulties in accepting arguments based exclusively on consideration of the Scriptures which may be seen as providing a guide to Christian behaviour rather than a set of all-embracing rules. As one Christian doctor points out:
An association between intercourse and procreation would not seem essential for a couple to conceive and adequately nurture a child and to attain the fulfilment within marriage that children can bring. Christ was nurtured in such circumstances. As intercourse is acceptable apart from procreation (I Cor 7:3 etc), is it not arguable that in certain circumstances procreation is acceptable apart from sexual intercourse?20
4.13 A major statement of the moral views of the Roman Catholic Church on artificial conception21 was published in February 1987.22 Two propositions provide the foundation of the statement. The first is that human beings may only be conceived by sexual intercourse within marriage.23 The statement specifically rejects as “illicit” the use of IVF by married couples whether in “the most common situation” (supplying their own sperm and ova) or in cases where donated sperm, ova or fertilized ova are needed.24 In making the judgment that procreation should not be separated from sexual union the statement says:
Fertilization achieved outside the bodies of the couple remains by this very fact deprived of the meanings and values which are expressed in the language of the body and in the union of human persons.25
4.14 The second proposition is that the fertilized human ovum is a human person26 and must be treated as a person from fertilization.27 The statement does not seek to prove this proposition by scientific argument but rather by reference to the Church’s teaching and doctrine.28
4.15 These propositions put forward by the theologians of the Roman Catholic Church are significant and must be seriously considered. However, they pose problems for Australian lawmaking on the subject of IVF because of the diverse, multicultural nature of Australian society today. The morality of one group of the community is not necessarily that of others. There is also the possibility of disagreement within the group itself , when the moral principle is a newly-formulated one. We referred earlier in this Chapter to surveys of public opinion and the significance of public opinion. It should be mentioned here that the national survey of April 1987 referred to in paragraph 4.6 showed a definite increase in public approval of IVF after the Vatican Statement of February 1987 rather than the decrease that might have been expected. The survey report carries the following note:
On 10 March 1987 the Vatican issued a statement branding as immoral all forms of artificial fertilisation, including the test tube baby method. Analysis by weeks shows that prior to the Vatican’s announcement approval was lower (72%) than in the weeks following the announcement (81%). Of Catholics surveyed before the Vatican’s announcement, 70% approved the test-tube baby method while this increased to 79% after the announcement. For non-Catholics the approval was 73% before the announcement and 81% afterwards.
The question whether moral propositions of the kind under discussion should be embedded in and enforced by legislation remains to be answered.
2. Unnatural and Dehumanizing Practices
4.16 IVF involves such procedures as sperm collection by masturbation, fertilization of ovum by sperm in a laboratory dish, and maturation of the conceptus in culture medium in the laboratory. Some opponents of IVF regard such a mode of conception as unnatural and dehumanizing. One such critic is Leon Kass:
My point is simply this: there are more and less human ways of bringing a child into the world. am arguing that the laboratory production of human beings is no longer human procreation, that making babies in laboratories - even “perfect” babies - means a degradation of parenthood.29
4.17 Other commentators argue that there is no inherent objection to IVF and embryo transfer in cases where conception by the usual method is impossible.30 Every medical intervention is a disturbance to the course of nature and a departure from the normal course of events. But to resign ourselves to our own impotence may be even more unnatural. One theologian even goes so far as to view IVF as an inherently superior mode of procreation:
A “test tube baby”... although conceived and gestated “ex corpo”, would nonetheless be humanly reproduced and of human value. A baby made artificially, by deliberate and careful contrivance, would be more human than one resulting from sexual roulette - the reproductive mode of the human species.31
3. Discarded Conceptuses
4.18 “Wastage” or discard of an IVF fertilized ovum may occur when it has become “surplus”, or after experimentation, or if it is found to be defective or abnormal. This raises the subject of the “moral status of the embryo” which is discussed in Chapter 8.32
4. Incidence of Fetal Abnormalities
4.19 Another concern has been to ask whether the risk of fetal malformation is higher than it is with natural reproduction. The American theologian, Professor Paul Ramsey, comments:
It is not a proper goal of medicine to enable women to have children and marriages to be fertile by any means - means which may bring hazard from the procedure, any additional hazard, upon the child not yet conceived. To suppose otherwise is to believe couples have such an absolute right to have children that this right cannot be overridden by the requirement that we should first have to exclude an incidence of induced risk to the child itself.33
4.20 One type of abnormality that is theoretically more likely with IVF is the condition known as “polyspermy.” This occurs when an ovum is penetrated by more than one sperm, and the resulting conceptus has three or more sets of chromosomes instead of the normal two. One study indicates that polyspermic fertilization occurs in 4 to 5 per cent of ova fertilized in vitro.34 Practitioners point out that in practice continuing pregnancies rarely occur, because a polyspermic fertilization does not normally produce a viable conceptus.35 Further, current IVF practice would not countenance the transfer of an abnormal conceptus to the womb of an IVF patient.
4.21 Another possible source of damage to the conceptus which could lead to abnormality in the IVF child is the freezing procedure. Evidence from animal studies suggests that pregnancies following cryopreservation of conceptuses have the same viability and incidence of fetal abnormalities as pregnancies resulting from non-frozen conceptuses.36 These studies have not satisfied all the critics. Some assert that the variations between species in the nature of their reproductive faculties mean that animal studies are either insufficient or irrelevant guides.37
4.22 Australian perinatal statistics reveal a minor increase in IVF child abnormalities compared with natural reproduction.38 IVF practitioners claim that this is due to the older age of the mothers and that the babies are often born by special obstetric delivery.39 Although concern over fetal abnormalities has eased since the birth of the first IVF child, the number of IVF children in Australia40 is too small a test sample to assert confidently that there is no increase in risk.41
5. Psychological Consequences
4.23 Associated with the physiological risks outlined in paragraphs 4.19 to 4.22 above are the emotional and psychological implications for the parties to IVF including the IVF child. It is still too early to determine whether the mode of conception has an effect on the mental and Psychological development of IVF children.
4.24 As far as IVF parents are concerned, it is well known that the experience of infertility can place great. stress on a couple’s relationship as can the experience of IVF treatment. As a result of the increased stresses linked with IVF conception and birth, it is argued that not all infertile couples will provide a favourable psychological environment for rearing a child.42 The suggestion has even been made that if the desire to have a child becomes overwhelming, it may represent a manifestation of a psychological imbalance rather than a genuine desire to provide for the interests of a child.43
4.25 On the other hand, it has been said that couples should be left to cope privately with the anxieties associated with infertility. Further, with proper guidance and counselling through medical advisers, social workers, psychologists and patient support groups, infertile couples can be informed and educated about the realities of IVF treatment, for example, the pregnancy success rate.44
6. Misallocation of Resources
4.26 In Chapter 2 we discussed the cost of IVF.45 Some have claimed that direct costs for patients may become unduly burdensome, and are prohibitive for many couples.46 The question has also been asked whether it is justifiable to provide costly medical services and technology for IVF patients, who represent only a small proportion of the population. With limited financial resources should Australia be allocating money to life-creating technologies such as IVF, in light of current low pregnancy rates, when other important health needs cannot be met?47
4.27 One answer is that it is not unusual for new medical (and industrial) techniques to be costly upon establishment, and that it can be expected that costs will fall as a technique becomes more efficient and demand increases. Cryopreservation of ova and fertilized ova may eliminate the need for ovum retrieval on a monthly basis and is an example of an efficient development. Further, increased knowledge from IVF research may benefit society in the fields of human reproduction and family planning and assist in the prevention and treatment of genetic abnormalities.48 A direct benefit of IVF research is improvement in the pregnancy success rate. Dr Robert Edwards, a pioneer of IVF, claims success in 33 per cent of cases treated at his Bourn Hall clinic in Cambridge, England.49
4.28 One writer on women’s health argues that many women are infertile as a result of excessive surgery, sexually transmitted diseases, medical experimentation on their bodies or the use of contraceptives such as IUDs and that the causes of infertility should be addressed rather than the effects. The writer recommends improving the teaching of venereology in medical schools to deal with the epidemic of sexually transmitted diseases, stopping the pattern of experimentation on women’s bodies with unproven drugs and devices and investigating the attitudes of physicians towards women to determine to what extent they may be impairing fertility.50
4.29 Other commentators maintain that more emphasis should be placed on the cure of infertility. IVF does not address the underlying problem of infertility, but alleviates the “symptom” of childlessness. One suggested alternative is microsurgical reconstruction of the fallopian tubes. In response, it is argued that it is inappropriate to advocate tubal microsurgery as an alternative to IVF. Microsurgery and IVF should not be viewed as competing techniques for the solution of a single problem but rather complementary treatments for infertility:
Improvements in IVF methods are likely to come with greater understanding of fallopian tube physiology; similarly information obtained from IVF research has already been very useful in fallopian tube research. Further understanding of normal and abnormal... tubal function will benefit the treatment of [infertility] as well as improving the outcome of IVF ...51
7. Experimentation on Women’s Bodies
4.30 IVF has been viewed by some groups as a form of male exploitation and oppression of women. Women’ s bodies, they argue, are treated as “living laboratories” to advance male medical careers.52 The history of the relationship between a male-dominated medical profession and women’s reproductive functions has been described as one of mistreatment, manipulation and mutilation”.53 The possibility of future injury has also been raised:
Medical technology has not always “freed” women and we need to ask whether the new technology will. What effects will be found in twenty years time, for example, in the bodies of the women caused to superovulate now in the Test Tube Baby programme?54
4.31 Specific risks which have been identified include the following:
(i) pre-treatment of a woman with hormones to induce superovulation, a therapy which occasionally produces ovarian cysts;
(ii) removal of oocytes by means of laparoscopy, a surgical procedure which requires general anaesthesia;
(iii) potential damage to the uterus during embryo transfer;
(iv) the risks which accompany careful monitoring of the pregnancy, for example, the risks of amniocentesis; and
(v) the risk of ectopic or tubal pregnancy, whereby the pregnancy occurs elsewhere than in the cavity of the uterus.55
4.32 Another criticism is that social attitudes towards child-rearing have caused many women to believe that the principal purpose of the female is to reproduce and be a full-time parent. This is said to put undue emphasis on motherhood and to be reinforced by the popular press and women’s magazines,56 creating social and psychological pressure on the infertile woman to achieve pregnancy. One infertile woman has written:
Every time you pass a newsagents there’s a magazine poster featuring Diana the beautiful and her two sons... Motherhood screams at you from everywhere... Olivia Newton-John, Jaclyn Smith and Jerry Hall all croon that motherhood is the best thing that’s ever happened to them.
Having a demanding job and becoming a Mum all prove that you’re a truly successful woman these days.57
4.33 Some take issue with these arguments against IVF by supporting personal autonomy and the “right to choose” with respect to sexual behaviour and reproduction.58 Others acknowledge the fact of a male-dominated medical profession, but argue that this is an illustration of power relations in our society rather than a justifiable indictment of the new technologies.59
8. Towards the “Brave New World”?
4.34 Some critics have relied on the well-known “slippery slope” argument (once we start on the downward path there is no knowing where we will end up). IVF, they argue, cannot be viewed in isolation from other fields of biotechnology, for example, genetic manipulation, cloning, sex pre-determination, and cross-breeding of humans with other species:
No technology exists autonomously or in isolation; each arises in the context of other technologies and, more importantly, in a complex and heterogeneous world of men whose proclivity for mischief and folly we cannot in good conscience ignore.60
According to this argument, acceptance of IVF inevitably leads to acceptance of the notion of “manufacturing” replacing natural procreation.61 When these technologies are viewed as tools to achieve eugenic designs, there must necessarily be consideration of their potential for interfering with evolutionary processes and the possible destruction of the human species. Even so, knowledge and the use of knowledge cannot be restricted to particular nations. At an international symposium held in Morocco in November 1986 to examine the implications for Islam of the new reproductive technology, it was revealed that three IVF clinics were operating in Jedda, Saudi Arabia, and two more were in the course of construction.62
4.35 The new reproductive technologies have also been seen as evidence of a trend towards community appropriation of traditional family functions. Some fear a reduction in individual liberty as a result of increasing interference in reproduction and childbirth by doctors, social workers, child rearing experts, psychiatrists and family counsellors:
Just as the failure of industry to voluntarily control its pollution of the environment has stimulated coercive legislation, so the pressure created by overpopulation, urbanization and the biological revolution will give rise to government control over human reproduction ... We thus face the prospect of our descendants living in a better (state-determined) quality atmosphere, but stripped of individual, familial, sexual freedom as we know it.63
4.36 Others see no insoluble ethical problems in IVF64 or even in the new biotechnology as such:
... all this means that we are going to have to change or alter our old ideas about who or what a father is, or a mother, or a family.65
Footnotes
1. P Devlin The Enforcement of Morals (1965) at chs 1 and 5.
2. Id at 13.
3. A classical proclamation of the rights of individuals is by John Stuart Mill:
The only purpose for which power can rightfully be exercised over any member of a civilized community against his will is to prevent harm to others . . . His own good either physical or moral is not a sufficient warrant. (J S Mill, On Liberty, ch 1).
4. Hon. Mr Justice Brennan “Law, Ethics and Medicine” (1978) 2 Medical Journal of Australia 577 at 578.
5. P Brett “Implications of science for the law” (1972) 18 McGill Law Journal 170 at 184.
6. People, 5 March 1984 at 73 cited in S Elias and G J Annas “Social Policy Considerations in Noncoital Reproduction” (1986) 255 Journal of the American Medical Association 62 at 62.
7. In a national survey on IVF conducted in April 1983, virtually the whole population sampled (97%) had heard of IVF. M Brumby “Australian community attitudes to in-vitro fertilization” (1983) 2 Medical Journal of Australia 650 at 651.
8. R Rowland and C Ruffin “Community attitudes to artificial insemination by husband or donor, in vitro, fertilization and adoption” (1983) 2 Clinical Reproduction and Fertility 195 at 198.
9. Id at 205.
10. Morgan Gallup Poll, 9 April 1987, Finding No.1550.
11. Bulletin, 3 July 1984 at 23.
12. Ibid.
13. M Brumby and M Levine “Australian Attitudes Towards IVF: A Comparison of the Value of Supporters and Opponents” (1986) 11(4) Australian Journal of Early Childhood 24.
14. Id at 27.
15. See eg J Fleming “A case against IVF based on the moral status of the embryo” in A Nichols and T Hogan (eds) Making Babies : the test tube and Christian Ethics (1984); P Ramsey “Shall we ‘Reproduce’?” (1972) 220 Journal of American Medical Association 1346.
16. Genesis 1:28, 9:7.
17. Genesis 2:24.
18. J Fleming, note 15, at 59.
19. For example, L Miller A Christian view of IVF (1985); W Walters “ I VF technology and its major ethical implications” in A Nichols and T Hogan (eds), note 15.
20. L Miller, note 19, at 44.
21. The statement’s foreword uses the following expressions to describe artificial conception “techniques of artificial procreation”, “biomedical techniques which make it possible to intervene in the initial phase of the life of a human being and in the very process of procreation”, “artificial interventions ... on the processes of procreation”.
22. Instruction on Respect for Human Life in its Origin And on The Dignity of Procreation - Replies to Certain Questions of the Day, given at Rome from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on 22 February 1987. The Instruction was approved by Pope John Paul II and published by his order.
23. Id at 23 and following.
24. Id at 25, 31.
25. Id at 28.
26. Id at 12, 13.
27. Id at 14.
28. Id at 12, 14.
29. Kass “Making Babies - the New Biology and the ‘Old’ Morality” (1972) 26 Public Interest 18 at 49.
30. See eg H O Tiefel “Human in Vitro Fertilization: A conservative view” (1982) 247 Journal of American Medical Association 3235.
31. J Fletcher Humanhood (1979) at 16-17, cited in W Walters and P Singer (eds) Test-Tube Babies (1982) at 95.
32. See also L Kass, note 29, at 32. Cf G R Dunstan “The Ethical Dilemma” paper delivered at the Fourth International Conference on 1VF, Melbourne 1985.
33. P Ramsey, note 15 at 1349.
34. M M Mahadevan and A 0 Trounson “The influence of seminal characteristics on the success of human IVF” (1984) 42 Fertility and Sterility 400.
35. C Wood and A Westmore Test-Tube Conception (1984) at 95.
36. See eg R R Maurer et al “Pre and post-natal development of mouse embryos after storage for different periods at cryogenic temperatures” (1977) 16 Biology of Reproduction 139 cited in A Nichols and T Hogan (eds), note 15, at 12.
37. See Singer and D Wells The Reproduction Revolution (1984) at 47.
38. The incidence of major congenital malformations in liveborn and stillborn IVF infants was 2.6% compared to a national incidence of non-IVF infants of 1.5%. National Perinatal Statistics Unit Report (1987) at 13.
39. See Dr Patrick Quinn’s comment in “Frozen egg revives IVF debate” Canberra Times, 29 December 1985 at 15.
40. See National Perinatal Statistics Unit Report (1987).
41. I L Pike “Biological Risks of In Vitro Fertilization and Embryo Transfer” in C Wood and A Trounson (eds) Clinical In Vitro Fertilization (1984) at 141. See also note 37 at 48.
42. Australian Family Association “Submission to the Committee of Inquiry on In Vitro Fertilization” (1982) 3 The Australian Family 6.
43. See W Walters :IVF technology and its major ethical implications” in A Nichols and T Hogan (eds) note 15, at 14.
44. J Aitken “Counselling for the Infertile” Submission to the Committee of Inquiry into In Vitro Fertilization, Victoria (1982).
45. Paras 2.22-2.23.
46. IVF Friends Newsletter, 15 January 1986. See also P Singer and D Wells Making Babies (1985) at 17-19. This book is a revised edition of The Reproduction Revolution (see note 37) and is published in the United States.
47. A E Hellegers and R A McCormick “Unanswered Questions on Test Tube Life” (1978) 139 America 76 at 77, cited in L Walters “Ethical Issues in Human In Vitro Fertilization and research involving Early Human Embryos” paper in Ethics Advisory Board (Dept of Health Education and Welfare, USA) HEW Support of Research Involving Human In Vitro Fertilization and Embryo Transter (4 May 1979) at 25. See also R Rowland “A Child at Any Price?” (1986) 8(6) Women’s Studies International Forum 539 at 544-545.
48. W Walters and P Singer “Conclusions - and Costs” in W Walters and P Singer (eds), note 31, at 134-137.
49. G Vines “Whose baby is it anyway?” New Scientist, 3 July 1986 at 26.
50. G Corea “Priorities”, paper delivered at the New South Wales Law Reform Commission, 6 May 1986. See also G Corea The Mother Machine (1985).
51. R P S Jansen “Fallopian Tube Physiology and Pathophysiology” (1982) The Fertility Society of Australia Proceedings First Annual meeting at 11.
52. M O’Brien The Politics of Reproduction (1984); R Koval, “Women, Birth and Power” (1985) 4 Australian Society 6.
53. R Rowland, note 47, at 544.
54. Ibid.
55 L Walters “Human In Vitro Fertilization: A Review of the Literature” (1979) 9 Hastings Center Report 23 at 28.
56. O’Hara “The media coverage of In Vitro Fertilization” in M Brumby (ed) Proceedings of the Conference - In Vitro Fertilization: Problems and Possibilities (1982) at 73.
57. C Moyse “The flower power I wish I was part of” Melbourne Herald, 6 May 1986.
58. N Pfeffer and A Woollett The Experience of Infertility (1983).
59. C Buibeck “The Power of Birth” (1985) 4 Australian Society 35.
60. Note 29 at 34.
61. P Ramsey, note IS. See also C E Curran Politics, Medicine and Christian Ethics: A dialogue with Paul Ramsey (1973) at 195-6.
62. Information supplied at Meeting of the Academy of the Kingdom of Morocco (Agadir, November 1986).
63. C P Kindregan “State Power Over Human Fertility and Individual Liberty” (1972) 23 Hastings Law Journal 1401 at 1404. See also C Lasch Haven in a Heartless World (1977) on the “socialization of reproduction”.
64. J Fletcher, note 31.
65. J Fletcher “Ethical Aspects of Genetic Control” (1971) 285 New England Journal of Medicine 766 at 782.
|
