No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
1. Medical Technology and New Frontiers of Family Law
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 April 2021
Extract
In Mount Isa Mines Limited v. Pusey, Windeyer, justice of the High Court of Australia, wrote of “[l]aw, marching with medicine but in the rear and limping a little.“ This remark, characterizing the stumbling approach of the law in providing damages for nervous shock occasioned by negligence, may be too kind when applied to the response of family law to the remarkable advances of knowledge and technology affecting human sexuality and conception.
Nowadays, there is a growing sense of urgency and impatience about the response of the law to medical developments. One writer trained both in law and medicine observed from his informed standpoint:
Those doctors who have studied law have always been uneasy at the extent to which Anglo-Saxon law departs from reality in dealing with biological issues. The nervous shock cases which continue to be based on medical principles discarded during the 19th century provide a notorious example.
- Type
- Part I: New Reproductive Technologies
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 1986
References
(1970) 125 CLR 383.Google Scholar
Id. at 395.Google Scholar
Havard, J.D.J., The Influence of the Law on Clinical Decisions Affecting Life and Death, Medicine, Science & Law 23: 157, 164–65 (1983).Google Scholar
See, e.g., Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 16(3).Google Scholar
Law Commission (Eng and Wales), Reform of the Grounds of Divorce: The Field of Choice (Law Com No. 6), 1966, Cmnd. 3123.Google Scholar
See Law Commission (Eng and Wales) Illegitimacy (Law Com 118) 1982. Cf. British Nationality Act 1981 (UK) §50(9). Relevant Australian legislation includes Children (Equality of Status) Act 1976 (NSW); Status of Children Act 1978 (QLD); Family Relationship Act 1975 (SA); Status of Children Act 1974 (Tas); and Status of Children Act 1974 (Vic). See also Status of Children Act 1978 (NT).Google Scholar
See, e.g., De Facto Relationships Act 1984 (NSW). Cf. New South Wales Law Reform Commission, De Facto Relationships, 1983 LRC 36.Google Scholar
Corbett v. Corbett [1971] P 83. For further discussion, see also Dewar, J., Transsexualism and Marriage, Kingston Law Review 15 (1): 58 (1985); and Pannick, D., Homosexuals, Transsexuals and the Sex Discrimination Act, Public Law 279 (1983).Google Scholar
Fraser, K. O'Reilly, M. Rintoul, J., Hermaphroditus versus, with Report of a Case, Medical Journal of Australia 1: 1003 (1966).Google Scholar
Id. at 1006.Google Scholar
Cf. Matrimonial Causes Act 1959 (Aust) §18 (1) (d) (now repealed).Google Scholar
Finlay, H., Sexual Identity and the Law of Nullity, Australian Law journal 54: 115 (1980).Google Scholar
Bailey, R., Family Law—Decree of Nullity of Marriage or True Hermaphrodite Who Has Undergone Sex Change Surgery, Australian Law Journal 53: 659, 660 (1979).Google Scholar
Wilson, R., Life and Law: The Impact of Human Rights on Experimenting with Life, Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences 17: 61. 79 (1985).Google Scholar
Holloway v. Arthur Andersen & Co, 566 F.2d 659 (1977).Google Scholar
Wilson, , supra note 17, at 80. See also Samuels, A., Once a Man Always a Man; Once a Woman Always a Woman—Sex Change and the Law, Medicine, Science & Law 24: 163 (1984). Cf. Van Oosterwijck v. Belgium, EHRR 3: 557 (1981), a case in the European Court of Human Rights concerning a transsexual's right to marry.Google Scholar
Described in UKWP, infra note 23; and Warnock Report, infra note 24.Google Scholar
United Kingdom Council for Science and Society, Report of a Working Party on Human Procreation: Ethical Aspects of the New Techniques (Oxford University Press, 1984, 13; hereafter “UKWP”).Google Scholar
London, H.M.S.O., Cmnd. 9314, 1984 (hereafter “Warnock Report”), at 18.Google Scholar
UKWP at 14.Google Scholar
Id. at 15.Google Scholar
Warnock Report, at 23–24.Google Scholar
Id. at 25.Google Scholar
Id. at 37–38. See also Wadlington, W., Artificial Conception: The Challenge for Family Law, Virginia Law Review 69:465 (1983).Google ScholarPubMed
Warnock Report, at 47.Google Scholar
Victoria, Committee to Consider the Social, Ethical and Legal Issues Arising from In Vitro Fertilisation, Interim Report (September 1982); Report on Donor Gametes in IVF (April 1983).Google Scholar
Australia, Family Law Council, Committee on Reproductive Technology, Creating Children (Australian Govt. Publishing Service, 1985). See also, news release, Mr.Bowen, L.K. (Attorney-General), August 21, 1985 69/85.Google Scholar
Bowen new release, supra note 33.Google Scholar
This is described by Dr.Johnston, I. (Melbourne) in Australia Senate Standing Committee, Constitutional and Legal Affairs, IVF and the Status of Children 6 (1985) (hereafter “Senate Report”).Google Scholar
Surrogacy Arrangements Act 1985 (UK).Google Scholar
Infertility (Medical Procedures) Act 1984 (Vic).Google Scholar
Sydney Morning Herald, January 31, 1986.Google Scholar
Cf. Kirby, M.D., From Hagar to Baby Cotton—Surrogacy, 85, Australia and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 25: 151 (1985).Google ScholarPubMed
See Jessep, O. Chisholm, R., Children, The Constitution and the Family Court, University OF New South Wales Law Journal 8: 152, 168–69 (1985).Google Scholar
Cormick v. Salmon (1984) FLC 91–554, (1984) 59 ALJR 151 (HC); Cook, Re Maxwell, JJ; ex parte C (1985) FLC 91–619, 10 Fam LR 99.Google Scholar
See Senate Report at 13. Note Artificial Conception Act 1984 (NSW), Artificial Conception Ordinance 1985 (ACT), and other legislation there mentioned.Google Scholar
Senate Report, at 58.Google Scholar
Charlesworth, M., Biotechnology and Bioethics—New Ways of Life and Death, Current Affairs Bulletin 61:4, 7 (1984).Google Scholar