Access to assisted human reproduction services by minority groups

Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology

Volumn 37, Issue 1, 1997, Pages 79-85

  Daniels, K R ^a   Burn, I ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CANTERBURY   (New Zealand)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTIFICIAL INSEMINATION; ATTITUDE; FERTILIZATION IN VITRO; HEALTH PRACTITIONER; HEALTH SERVICE; HUMAN; HUMAN RIGHTS; LAW; LESBIAN; NEW ZEALAND; POLICY; POSTMENOPAUSE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROFESSIONAL STANDARD; PUBLIC OPINION; REPRODUCTION; REVIEW; SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED DISEASE; SINGLE PARENT; WELFARE;

EID: 0031047556     PISSN: 00048666     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1479-828X.1997.tb02223.x     Document Type: Review

References (30)

1. New Zealand Government. Human Rights Commission Act. Wellington. Government Printer, 1977.
2. New Zealand Government. Human Rights Act. Wellington. Government Printer, 1993.
3. New Zealand Government. Status of Children Amendment Act. Wellington. Government Printer, 1987: 1-9.
4. Department of Justice (Law Reform Division), New Zealand Government. New Birth Technologies. An Issues Paper on AID, IVF, and Surrogate Motherhood. Department of Justice (Law Reform Division), New Zealand Government, 1985.
5. Department of Justice (Law Reform Division), New Zealand Government. New Birth Technologies. A summary of submissions received on the issues paper. Department of Justice (Law Reform Division), New Zealand Government, 1986.
6. Ministerial Committee on Assisted Reproductive Technology. Assisted Human Reproduction: Navigating our Future. Department of Justice, New Zealand Government, 1994.
7. Human Rights Commission NZ. Submission of the Human Rights Commission to the Ministerial Committee on Assisted Reproductive Technologies. In: Human Rights Commission, 1994.
8. Dyall L, Keith J; E Toro Nei Nga Kawai Taura Tangata. The Human Links Extend Like Branches of a Tree. Analysis of Written Submissions Made to Ministerial Committee on Assisted Reproductive Technologies appendix C. In: Assisted Human Reproduction: Navigating our Future. Department of Justice, New Zealand Government, 1994.
9. Listener. Do we need to have children to be fulfilled? New Zealand Listener 1994. October, 1, 1994: 13.
10. Chisolm D, Umbers L. Scientist quits over lesbian IVF ruling. Sunday Star-Times 1995; 19/2:6.
11. McNeil K. Donor shortage foils couples. Fertility clinics seek 'healthy, responsible' men aged 20-50, The Press 1995 1/6/95:5.
12. Dekker D. The Baby Makers/Fertility specialists who help childless people have families. The Evening Post 1994; 2 November: 31-2.
13. Golombok S, Tasker F. Donor insemination for single heterosexual and lesbian women: issues concerning the welfare of the child. Human Reproduction 1994, November 9 (11): 1972-6.
14. Englert Y. Artificial insemination of single women and lesbian women with donor semen. Human Reproduction 1994; 9: 1969-1971.
15. Overall C. Human Reproduction: Principles, Practices, Policies. Toronto: Oxford University Press; 1993: 174.
16. Englert Y. Artificial insemination of single women and lesbian women with donor semen. Human Reproduction 1994; 9: 1969-1971.
17. Blankenhorn D. Fatherless America. Confronting Our Most Urgent Social Problem. New York. Basic Books; 1995: 328.
18. Kern PA, Ridolfi KM. The Fourteenth Amendment's Protection of a Women's Right to Be a Single Parent through Artificial Insemination by Donor. Women's Rights Law Reporter 1982; 7: 251-284.
19. Smith GP. Reproductive Autonomy. Values Gone Awry? In: The New Biology. Law Ethics and Biotechnology. New York. Plenum. 1989; 171-198.
20. Overall C. Human Reproduction: Principles, Practices, Policies. Toronto. Oxford University Press; 1993: 174.
21. Blank R, Merrick JC. Human Reproduction, Emerging Technologies, and Conflicting Rights. Washington D.C. CQ Press, 1995: 269.
22. Christchurch Infertility Society (individual members of). Personal communication with authors as a result of research into the development of this organisation. 1995.
23. Listener/Heylen Monitor. Who is left holding the baby? New Zealand Listener 1995. January; 21: 14-15.
24. Tyler JP, Nicholas M, Crockett N et al. Some attitudes to artificial insemination by donor. Clinical Reproduction and Fertility 1983; 2: 151-160.
25. Rawson G. Human artificial insemination by donor and the Australian community. Clinical Reproduction and Fertility 1985; 3: 1-19.
26. Rowland R, Ruffin C. Community attitudes to artificial insemination by husband or donor, in vitro fertilisation and adoption. Clinical Reproduction and Fertility 1983; 2: 195-206.
27. Department of Justice. Assisted Human Reproduction. A commentary on the Report of the Ministerial Committee on Assisted Reproductive Technologies (Consultation Document). Wellington: Department of Justice, 1995: 27.
28. Daniels K. Assisted Reproductive Technology Policy in New Zealand. Needs, Rights and Responsibilities, Public Sector 1994; 17: 22-25.
29. Daniels K, Caldwell J. Assisted Reproduction and the Law; Implications for Policy. In: Henaghan M, Atkin B, ed. Family Law Policy in New Zealand. Auckland. Oxford University Press 1992: 256-303.
30. Rider C. The Human Rights Commission and Assisted Reproductive Technologies. Broadsheet 1994 Spring: 10-11.