Response to Orr and Siegler - Collective intentionality and procreative desires: The permissible view on consent to posthumous conception

Journal of Medical Ethics

Volumn 30, Issue 4, 2004, Pages 389-392

  Parker, M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF QUEENSLAND   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTIFICIAL INSEMINATION; AUSTRALIA; CHILD WELFARE; HUMAN; HUMAN RIGHTS; INFERTILITY; LAW; LEGAL ASPECT; MEDICAL ETHICS; MEDICAL PRACTICE; PARENTAL CONSENT; PHENOMENOLOGY; POSTHUMOUS CONCEPTION; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; REVIEW; SEMEN ANALYSIS; UNITED KINGDOM;

GENETICS AND REPRODUCTION;

ATTITUDE TO DEATH; AUSTRALIA; CHILD; CHILD WELFARE; FEMALE; GREAT BRITAIN; HUMAN RIGHTS; HUMANS; INFORMED CONSENT; INSEMINATION, ARTIFICIAL; MALE; MOTIVATION; POSTHUMOUS CONCEPTION; TISSUE AND ORGAN HARVESTING; TISSUE DONORS;

EID: 4344618808     PISSN: 03066800     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/jme.2002.002493     Document Type: Review

References (17)

1. Orr RD, Siegler M. Is posthumous semen retrieval ethically permissible? J Med Ethics 2002;28:299-303.
2. In the matter of Gray [2000] QSC 390 (12 October 2000), para 23.
3. Schiff AR. Posthumous conception and the need for consent. Med J Aust 1999;170:53-4.
4. Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 (UK) sA (1) (b).
5. R v Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, ex parte Blood [1997] 2 All ER 687.
6. Rogers ME. Gametes: storage, consent and treatment. Web J Curr Legal Issues, 1997;3. Available at webjcli.ncl.ac.uk/1997/issue3/rodgers3.html (accessed on 7 July 2002).
7. Infertility Treatment Act 1995 (Vic) s43 (a).
8. Ethical Guidelines on Assisted Reproductive Technology. Available at www.health.gov.au/nhmrc/publications/synopses/e28syn.htm (accessed on 7 July 2002).
9. Otlowski M. AB v Attorney-General (Vic). J Law Med, 1999;6:228.
10. The recently released draft revision of the Guidelines retains the proscription against sperm retrieval: section 10.13 says "Gametes should not be obtained from cadavers for use in reproductive technology programs". Available at www.health.gov.au/nhmrc/issues/index.htm (accessed on 10 July 2002).
11. JM v QFG (unreported, No BC9804065, Queensland Court of Appeal, Davies, Pincus, and Thomas JJA).
12. Searle J. Mind, Language and Society. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1999:85.
13. See reference 12: 118-21.
14. Searle J. The Construction of Social Reality. London: Penguin, 1995:23-6.
15. See reference 1: 302.
16. Baker v State of Queensland [2003] QSC 002 (03/39); judgment available at www.courts.qld.gov.au/qjudgment/QSC%202003/QSC03-002.pdf (accessed on 21 January 2003).
17. van der Burg W. Bioethics and law: a developmental perspective. Bioethics 1997;11:91-114.