Copyright © 2011
Southern Cross Bioethics Institute
Telephone: 08 8297 0022 International: +61 8 8297 0022
Fax: 08 8297 5738
e-mail: scbi@bioethics.org.au
COPYRIGHT | DISCLAIMER | TERMS OF REFERENCE | FEEDBACK
Surrogacy arrangements are ethically problematic for a number of reasons and we have consistently expressed this view in our submissions on proposed surrogacy legislation of other states in recent years. We believe that no legislation can adequately permit surrogacy arrangements without avoiding the real risk of harms towards all parties involved, in particular the child and the surrogate mother, both of whom are the most vulnerable to exploitation, objectification and the harms that result. These problems become more acute given that the Tasmanian Bill proposes to allow homosexual couples and single parents to have children through surrogacy arrangements. Furthermore, surrogacy arrangements may lead to further logistical and legal complications, in particular the real risks of litigation and custody disputes. These issues were discussed in a submission forwarded to the Tasmanian parliament recently.
In a recent article published in our BRN we informed our readers about the information presented in the major reports published on the efficacy and achievements of the Medically Supervised Injecting Centre (MSIC) in Kings Cross over the last decade of its operations. We summarised the main results of those reports and demonstrated that they did not provide any substantive evidence that the MSIC had achieved its objectives which it had claimed to have achieved. Clearly, the New South Wales government’s recent legislation to enable the permanent operation of the MSIC is more likely to reflect an uncritical acceptance of a harm reduction agenda rather than an evidence- based approach to drug policy. Though, one wonders whether this also demonstrates that the community (particularly the local residents and business owners and injecting drug users of Kings Cross) is content to have this drug issue swept under the rug rather than properly dealt with.
The legislation governing research on embryos as well as embryo cloning is currently being reviewed, as required by the relevant Act. Over two hundred public submissions have been made. The question of payment for human eggs and the creation of human/animal hybrid embryos were two of the more controversial issues being addressed. The director of SCBI appeared before the committee. For more information see
https://legislationreview.nhmrc.gov.au/
Women and Abortion: An Evidence Based Review by Selena Ewing was first published by Women’s Forum Australia in 2005 and updated in 2009. The Institute is currently conducting research to assess whether there has been any further developments in this field since 2009.
It sometimes seems that the patient autonomy movement has reduced the medical profession to an industry solely focused on service provision. It is not uncommon for a patient to request a non-emergency medical service of a doctor, such as IVF or termination of pregnancy, rather than a diagnosis and associated treatment plan. Given such cases of non-emergency medicine, a doctor’s involvement should not be forced nor should they be held liable when a doctor refuses due to an expressly held conscientious objection. Conscience clause laws have been established to protect such doctors. Research at the Institute continues to examine the arguments that are aimed at increasing supply of controversial medical services at the expense of the consciences of doctors.