Melbourne Law School - Research Publications
Permanent URI for this collection
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6
-
ItemNo Preview AvailableRegulating non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) for fetal sex determination(OXFORD UNIV PRESS, 2023-11-27)Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) can be used to determine the chromosomal sex of the fetus at an early stage in a pregnancy. The use of NIPT for fetal sex determination raises concerns about potential selective termination of pregnancy by prospective parents who desire a child of a particular sex. Although sex selection for medical reasons is generally accepted, non-medical sex selection (NMSS) has been the subject of considerable controversy. In this article, we explore the current regulatory landscape around reproductive genetic testing techniques that may lead to NMSS, both internationally and within Australia. Specifically, we contrast the approach to regulating preimplantation genetic testing (PGT) with the minimal regulation of NIPT in Australia as a case study for reform. We examine ethical concerns raised in relation to NMSS, which form the basis of the current moratorium on the use of PGT for NMSS. We then highlight some key differences between using PGT for NMSS and NIPT for fetal sex determination to determine whether access to the latter should be regulated and, if so, how. We conclude that there is insufficient evidence to restrict access to NIPT for fetal sex determination and, based on our Australian case study, recommend a facilitative approach to regulating NIPT that would support individuals to make informed reproductive decisions.
-
ItemNo Preview AvailableEthical issues associated with prenatal screening using non-invasive prenatal testing for sex chromosome aneuploidy(WILEY, 2023-02)Prenatal screening for sex chromosome aneuploidies (SCAs) is increasingly available through expanded non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT). NIPT for SCAs raises complex ethical issues for clinical providers, prospective parents and future children. This paper discusses the ethical issues that arise around NIPT for SCAs and current guidelines and protocols for management. The first section outlines current practice and the limitations of NIPT for SCAs. It then outlines key guidelines before discussing the ethical issues raised by this use of NIPT. We conclude that while screening for SCAs should be made available for people seeking to use NIPT, its implementation requires careful consideration of what, when and how information is provided to users.
-
ItemJudicial Discomfort Over 'Innovative' Treatment for Adolescents with Gender Dysphoria(OXFORD UNIV PRESS, 2022-09-06)Medical treatment for adolescents with gender dysphoria has attracted considerable attention in recent years, with continuing court involvement in Australia and recent judicial review proceedings in the UK. In Re Imogen [No 6], the Family Court of Australia held that an application to the Family Court is mandatory if a parent or a medical practitioner of an adolescent diagnosed with gender dysphoria disputes the diagnosis, the adolescent's capacity to consent, or the proposed treatment. In this article, we examine the Family Court's rationale for preserving its welfare jurisdiction in gender dysphoria cases. We analyse case law developments in Australia and more recently in the UK and identify a thread of judicial discomfort in gender dysphoria jurisprudence about adolescents consenting to medical treatment that the court perceives to be 'innovative', 'experimental', 'unique', or 'controversial'. We explore whether treatment for gender dysphoria can be characterised as 'innovative' and identify four factors that appear to be influencing courts in Australia and the UK. We also consider how such a characterisation might impact (if at all) on an adolescent's capacity to consent to gender dysphoria treatment. We critique the ongoing role of courts in these cases and recommend a robust decision-making framework for gender dysphoria treatment to minimise court involvement in the future.
-
ItemComparing Non-Medical Sex Selection and Saviour Sibling Selection in the Case of JS and LS v Patient Review Panel: Beyond the Welfare of the Child?(SPRINGER, 2018-03)The national ethical guidelines relevant to assisted reproductive technology (ART) have recently been reviewed by the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC). The review process paid particular attention to the issue of non-medical sex selection, although ultimately, the updated ethical guidelines maintain the pre-consultation position of a prohibition on non-medical sex selection. Whilst this recent review process provided a public forum for debate and discussion of this ethically contentious issue, the Victorian case of JS and LS v Patient Review Panel (Health and Privacy) [2011] VCAT 856 provides a rare instance where the prohibition on non-medical sex selection has been explored by a court or tribunal in Australia. This paper analyses the reasoning in that decision, focusing specifically on how the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal applied the statutory framework relevant to ART and its comparison to other uses of embryo selection technologies. The Tribunal relied heavily upon the welfare-of-the-child principle under the Assisted Reproductive Treatment Act 2008 (Vic). The Tribunal also compared non-medical sex selection with saviour sibling selection (that is, where a child is purposely conceived as a matched tissue donor for an existing child of the family). Our analysis leads us to conclude that the Tribunal's reasoning fails to adequately justify the denial of the applicants' request to utilize ART services to select the sex of their prospective child.
-
ItemNo Preview AvailableGaining Clarity of the Ethicial Issues of a Possible COVID-19 Vaccine( 2020)Given the implications for potential take-up of a COVID-19 vaccine, it's important to unpack religious as well as the general ethical concerns from using human cell lines.
-
Item