Kerry Petersen

Experiences of prenatal diagnosis and decision‐making about termination of pregnancy: A qualitative study

Advances in genetic technologies and ultrasound screening techniques have increased the ability to predict and diagnose congenital anomalies during pregnancy. As a result more prospective parents than ever before will receive a prenatal diagnosis of a fetal abnormality. Little is known about how Australian women and men experience receiving a prenatal diagnosis and how they make their decision about whether or not to continue the pregnancy.

Access, equity and costs of induced abortion services in Australia: a cross‐sectional study

Objectives: To examine access and equity to induced abortion services in Australia, including factors associated with presenting beyond nine weeks gestation.

SmARTest Regulation? Comparing the Regulatory Structures for Art in the UK and Australia

Assisted reproductive technologies are regulated in both the UK and Australia, thereby curtailing both reproductive and professional autonomy. Different regulatory models have developed in each jurisdiction, despite the similar legal, scientific and cultural histories of the two jurisdictions. In the UK the regulatory structures are under review, largely in the absence of empirical research on the costs and benefits of regulation. The regulatory structures in each jurisdiction are compared and some key differences identified. The UK regulatory structure governing assisted reproductive technologies is currently simpler, more accountable and more transparent than that in Australia. On the other hand, despite administrative and legislative restrictions (particularly in Victoria), the medical scientists and clinicians in Australia generally have more control than their British counterparts over the technical aspects of their work in the provision of IVF and other treatment services, and to a lesser extent in embryo research. Recent proposals appear to move the UK regulatory structure towards a less accountable and less transparent model, but with no evident increase in reproductive or professional autonomy. It is suggested that this change is not in the interests of patients, doctors and the public, and a different model is outlined for devolution of both authority and accountability to the professions.

Abortion Counselling in Australia

SynopsisThis article deals with one aspect of a study of the abortion delivery system that operates in all the capital cities in Australia. The 176 respondents in the study worked as doctors, nurses, counsellors and social workers in places that provide abortion services. Both quantitative and qualitative methods were used to obtain the information. The role of abortion counselling in Australia is discussed and the attitudes of respondents examined. It was found that the majority of respondents favoured the right of a woman to choose whether or not to have an abortion. The majority also favoured compulsory abortion counselling. There was no significant variation amongst the occupational groups. It was also found that the majority of respondents from all the capital cities except Melbourne favoured abortion counselling. However, a higher proportion of respondents from the ‘abortion reform’ jurisdictions, Adelaide and Darwin, favoured compulsory counselling than in the other capitals.

The rights of donor-conceived children to know the identity of their donor

There is no consistent regulatory pattern controlling assisted reproductive technologies (ART) at the international or domestic levels and it remains an area of medicine steeped in ethical and moral dilemmas. At this point, the models of regulation range from ART statutes which provide comprehensive legislative schemes, ad hoc statutes which address specific issues, such as surrogacy laws and professional guidelines, to combinations of these models and zero legal regulation (Lee and Morgan 2001, 265-305). Until recently, ART children were not permitted access to information about donors, however, concerns about human rights issues and the personal implications of denying ART children with this information, has provided an impetus for the introduction of disclosure laws and policies in an increasing number of countries. Birthrights are generally not a problem where family members are related through marriage, biology or adoption. The formal process of recording information about identity and personal history commences with birth registration. Once born, a child is registered and a birth certificate is issued which records information about the child’s personal history. When a child is born from donated gametes in Australia or Britain, the personal history recorded on the birth certificate is socially constructed. The birth certificate records the social parents, but not the identity of the donor(s) or that the conception was assisted by a donor. There is no legal requirement to inform the child about the means of conception. The legal fiction provides ART children with legal status, facilitates social acceptance of the ART family (Frith 2001) and regulates family formation (Haimes 2002, 444). This chapter examines the culture of secrecy which has influenced laws and policies regulating donor insemination (DI) and the rights of donor-conceived children to identifying information about their donors, who in practice are usually sperm donors “since the nature of ovum and embryo donation means that the donor

Medical negligence and wrongful birth actions: Australian developments.

Wrongful birth actions aim to compensate litigants who are negligently deprived by health professionals of their right to reproductive choice. Access to safe and legal abortion is integral to the action and wrongful birth claims in the United Kingdom have been facilitated by the Abortion Act 1967 (as amended). The recent Australian case CES v Superclinics (1995) 38 NSWLR 47 shows how judicial confusion about the legality of abortion can result in judges condoning medical negligence. The Superclinics case also suggests that doctors are not required to provide pregnant women with the same standard of care as other patients. These developments show that law can become incoherent and health professionals can act negligently with impunity when reproductive choice does not have a secure legal foundation.