Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T00:51:40.731Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Best Interests of the Child in Assisted Human Reproduction: The Interplay Between the State, Professionals, and Parents

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 May 2016

Ken R. Daniels ,
Eric Blyth ,
Darrel Hall  and
Kathy M. Hanson
Ken R. Daniels
Affiliation:
Canterbury University, New Zealand
Eric Blyth
Affiliation:
Huddersfield University, United Kingdom
Darrel Hall
Affiliation:
Canterbury University, New Zealand
Kathy M. Hanson
Affiliation:
Canterbury University, New Zealand
Get access

Abstract

Developments in assisted human reproduction (AHR) have aroused considerable debate and interest around the world, with most governments accepting that they are matters of public policy. This politicization of AHR is explored in the context of a consideration of the oft-used term “the best interests of the child.” This “rallying call” is frequently cited as the primary concern in the determination of policy. This article is based on the contention that it is important to examine the interplay between the three main groups directly influencing “best interest” outcomes for AHR offspring. These groups are the professionals, the parents, and the state. It seeks to examine how this high-sounding and well-meaning commitment is addressed, advanced, or ignored in the interplay of these groups.

Type
Children and Public Policy
Information
Politics and the Life Sciences , Volume 19 , Issue 1 , March 2000 , pp. 33 - 44
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Politics and the Life Sciences 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Andrews, K. (1990). “Regulating Embryo Experimentation: The Victorian Experience.” In Caton, H. (ed.), Trends in Biomedical Regulation. Sydney: Butterworths.Google Scholar
Asche, A. (1985). Creating Children: Report of the Family Law Council of Australia. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.Google Scholar
Bederman, G. (1995). Manliness and Civilisation: A Cultural History of Gender and Race in the United States, 1880–1917. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bielawska-Batorowicz, E. (1993). “Not Ready for Openness: Donor Insemination in Poland.” Politics and the Life Sciences 12:173–74.Google Scholar
Blyth, E. (1995). “The United Kingdom's Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 and the Welfare of the Child: A Critique.” International Journal of Children's Rights 3:417–38.Google Scholar
Bonduelle, M. et al. (1999). “Seven Years of Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection and Follow Up of 1987 Subsequent Children.” Human Reproduction 14 (supp. 1):243–64.Google Scholar
Botting, B., MacFarlane, A., and Price, F., eds. (1990). Three, Four and More: A Study of Triplet and Higher Order Births. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
Brandon, J. and Warner, J. (1977). “AID and Adoption: Some Comparisons.” British Journal of Social Work 7:335–41.Google Scholar
Bryan, E.I. (1999). “Multiple Births: Too High a Price?” In Towards Reproductive Certainty: Fertility and Genetics beyond 1999. New York: Parthenon Publishing.Google Scholar
Cooke, I. (1993). “Developments in Donor Insemination and the Law in the UK.” In Barratt, C.L.R. and Cooke, I.D. (eds.), Donor Insemination. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Corson, S.L. and Mechanik-Braverman, A. (1998). “Why We Believe There Should Be a Gamete Registry.” Fertility and Sterility 69:809–11.Google Scholar
Curson, R. (1998). “The Best Interests of the Child and the Best Interests of the Donor.” Dl Network Newsletter No. 11 (May):5–6.Google Scholar
Daniels, K. and Lalos, O. (1995). “The Swedish Insemination Act and the Availability of Donors.” Human Reproduction 10:1871–74.Google Scholar
Daniels, K.R. (1994). “The Swedish Insemination Act and Its Impact.” Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 34:437–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daniels, K.R. (1997). “Information Sharing in Gamete Donation.” In Lorbach, C. (ed.), Let the Offspring Speak: Discussions on Donor Conception. Sydney: The Donor Conception Support Group of Australia.Google Scholar
Daniels, K.R. (1999). “Protecting the Vulnerable in Collaborative Reproduction.” In Jansen, R. and Mortimer, D. (eds.), Towards Reproductive Certainty: Fertility and Genetics beyond 1999. London: Parthenon Publishing.Google Scholar
Daniels, K.R. and Burn, I. (1997). “Access to Assisted Human Reproduction Services by Minority Groups.” Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 37:79–85.Google Scholar
Daniels, K.R. and Lewis, G. (1996). “Donor Insemination: The Gifting and Selling of Semen.” Social Science and Medicine 42:1521–36.Google Scholar
Daniels, K.R. and Taylor, K. (1993). “Secrecy and Openness in Donor Insemination.” Politics and the Life Sciences 12:155–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
David, G. and Price, W.S., eds. (1980). Human Artificial Insemination and Semen Preservation. Paris: Plenum.Google Scholar
Fraser, N. (1990). “Struggle over Needs: Outline of a Socialist-Feminist Critical Theory of Late-Capitalist Political Culture.” In Gordon, L. (ed.), Women, the State and Welfare. Minneapolis-St Paul: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
Freeman, M. (1996). “The New Birth Right? Identity and the Child of the Reproduction Revolution.” The International Journal of Children's Rights 4:273–97.Google Scholar
Freeman, M. (1998). “Taking Children's Rights Seriously.” Children and Society 4:299–319.Google Scholar
Golombok, S. (1997). “Assisted Reproduction for Lesbian and Single Heterosexual Women.” Journal for Assisted Reproduction and Genetics 14:1972–76.Google Scholar
Golombok, S. and Tasker, F. (1994). “Children in Lesbian and Gay Families: Theories and Evidence.” Annual Review of Sex Research 1994:73–100.Google Scholar
Great Britain (1989). Children Act. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
Haimes, E. (1988). “Secrecy: What Can Artificial Reproduction Learn from Adoption?” International Journal of Law and the Family 2:46–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haimes, E. (1993). “Secrecy and Openness in Donor Insemination: A Sociological Comment on Daniels and Taylor.” Politics and the Life Sciences 12:178–79.Google Scholar
Haimes, E. (1998). “The Making of the Dl Child: Changing Representations of People Conceived through Donor Insemination.” In Daniels, K. and Haimes, E. (eds.), Donor Insemination: International Social Science Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hardie-Boys, M. (1981). Walker vs Walker and Harrison. New Zealand Recent Law, p. 257.Google Scholar
Hinsliff, G. (1996). Fertility Clinics Are Ignoring Guidelines on Single Mothers. Daily Mail (May 2):20.Google Scholar
Hunt, J. (1996). “PROGAR Consultation Day.” Journal of Fertility Counselling 3 (2):7.Google Scholar
King's Fund Centre (1991). Counselling for Regulated Infertility Treatments: The Report of the Counselling Committee. London: King's Fund Centre.Google Scholar
Knight, J. (1996). House of Commons Debates. Hansard. October 30, col. 590.Google Scholar
Knoppers, B.M. and Le Bris, S. (1991). “Recent Advances in Medically Assisted Conception: Legal, Ethical and Social Issues.” American Journal of Law and Medicine 18 (4):329–361.Google Scholar
Lauren, C. (1997). “Issues for Donor-Inseminated Offspring.” In Lorbach, C. (ed.), The Donor Issues Forum. Sydney: The Donor Conception Support Group of Australia.Google Scholar
Lorbach, C. (1997). “Let the Offspring Speak.” In Lorbach, C. (ed.), The Donor Issues Forum. Sidney: The Donor Conception Support Group of Australia.Google Scholar
Maslow, A.H. (1968). Toward a Psychology of Being. 2nd edition. Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand Reinhold.Google Scholar
Mays, A. (1998). “Secrecy Is Not an Option: Trust in the Truth.” In Blyth, E., Crawshaw, M., and Speirs, J. (eds.), Truth and the Child Ten Years On: Information Exchange in Donor Assisted Conception. Birmingham, UK: British Association of Social Workers.Google Scholar
McLean, S. (1997). “Consent in Assisted Procreation.” Bulletin of Medical Ethics (September):3–4.Google Scholar
Merrricks, W. (1998). “Is It Ethical?” DI Network Newsletter (May):4.Google Scholar
Novaes, S.B. (1998). “The Medical Management of Donor Insemination.” In Daniels, K. and Haimes, E. (eds.), Donor Insemination: International Social Science Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Primarolo, D. (1990). House of Commons Debates. Hansard. June 20, col. 989–990.Google Scholar
Robertson, J.A. (1994). Children of Choice: Freedom and the New Reproductive Technologies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Rubin, S. (1983). “A Sperm Donor Baby Grows Up.” In Zimmerman, J. (ed.), The Technological Woman: Interfacing with Tomorrow. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Sants, H.J. (1964). “Genealogical Bewilderment in Children with Substitute Parents.” British Journal of Medical Psychology 37:133–41.Google Scholar
United Kingdom (1990). Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
United Kingdom Parliament (1989). Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
United Nations (1989). Convention on the Rights of the Child. New York: United Nations.Google Scholar
Victoria, State of (1995). Infertility Treatment Act. Melbourne: L.V. North, Government Printer.Google Scholar
Walters, L. (1987). “Ethics and New Reproductive Technologies: An International Review of Committee Statements.” Hastings Center Report 17 (3):3–9.Google Scholar
Walters, L. (1996). “Current and Future Issues in Assisted Reproduction.” Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 6:383–87.Google Scholar
Warnock, M. (1985a). “Moral Thinking and Government Policy: The Warnock Committee on Human Embryology.” Health and Society 63:504–22.Google Scholar
Warnock, M. (1985b). “The Warnock Report.” British Medical Journal 291 (July 20):187–89.Google Scholar
Warnock, M. (1987). “Ethics, Decision-Making and Social Policy.” Community Care 685:18–23.Google Scholar
Whipp, C. (1998). “The Legacy of Deceit: A Donor Offspring's Perspective on Secrecy in Assisted Conception.” In Blyth, E., Crawshaw, M., and Speirs, J. (eds.), Truth and the Child 10 Years On: Information Exchange in Donor Assisted Conception. Birmingham, UK: British Association of Social Workers.Google Scholar