Abstract
While some are proponents of restrictive legislation, others have argued that there is too much legislation for ART and cite existing legal choices for women in relation to human reproduction which respect individual autonomy. It has been argued that where genuine, informed decision-making occurs and there is a process for legitimate ethical review, that restrictive laws make little sense. In some cases restrictive legislation denies access to appropriate treatment for couples that have no other means of forming their families. History reveals that governments can make ill informed, expedient decisions, which are not necessarily in the best interests of their citizens. Italy provides a sobering example. Legislation is difficult to repeal and in a high-tech, rapidly evolving area such as ART, even the most well intended legislation could quickly prove obsolete.
In Australia, crucial to achieving good outcomes in the regulation of ART has been the involvement of patients in legislation, accreditation and policy, working in partnership with health care providers, the media and members of parliament. This has ensured transparency and quality in service delivery. It is also appropriate, as it recognises that ultimately it is patients who must live with the consequences of policy and treatment decisions.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.