A.I.D. problems

Press, 21 April 1984, Page 18

A.I.D. problems

The Law Society’s approach to the Minister of Justice, Mr McLay, to consider setting up a special committee to study the legal implications of artificial insemination by donor and in-vitro fertilisation is far from being precipitate. Some of the legal problems of artificial insemination are already apparent. Consideration did not stop at the legal implications, because there are complex social, moral, and emotional problems involved. The benefits of advances in medical sciences include making women fertile who were not fertile, making it possible for a woman and an infertile man to have a baby through artificial insemination, and even for a woman to have a fertilised egg transplanted into her so that she eventually bears the child into which the fertilised egg will develop. But these medical advances have occurred in a society which has not yet thought the implications through. Many of the decisions now being made are taken by doctors, some of whom would rather not have the role thrust on them.

Artificial insemination by donor is not illegal in New Zealand, as it is in Switzerland and South Africa. However, the law does not specifically acknowledge that the practice exists. At present the law generally recognises the biological connection between a child and his or her father. This means that the donor of semen could be regarded as the legal father of the child. This has profound implications for both the donor of the semen and for the social father of the child. Already there has been a case of a man opposing maintenance of children who, he said, were conceived through artificial insemination by donor. It could also be argued that a man leaving his estate to his children might have the will challenged by some children saying that others were conceived through artificial insemination by donor and therefore not strictly his children. A former wife with incontrovertible proof that the man to whom she was once married had had an irreversible vasectomy might challenge the provisions of a will on the ground that the children of a later marriage could not have been those of her former husband.

Artificial insemination by donor is under the supervision of doctors in New Zealand. Elsewhere in the world there are some sperm banks, and it is possible that women who want children will one day be able to buy sperm at such a bank and inseminate themselves. Should legal controls be put on such practices? Another potential legal tangle exists over the registration of a child’s birth. It can be argued that by entering the name of the woman’s husband, when the woman has been fertilised

with the semen of another man, the couple is committing an offence. It is clear that the law has a great deal of catching up to do over artificial insemination by donor. Similar tangles exist over in-vitro fertilisation. The case of a woman whose egg is fertilised by her husband outside her body and then later is transplanted back into her body presents few problems; but practically every other permutation of the arrangement does. In the case of a surrogate mother under a contract to carry another couple’s child — no cases have been reported in New Zealand — what happens if the surrogate mother wants to break the contract and keep the child?

The legal problems should not be considered in isolation from the social, moral, and emotional problems. One of the basic social problems is that of who should be given artificial insemination. If a parallel is sought in adoptive parents, there is considerable inquiry into the suitability of a couple to be parents. At least one doctor is on record as having worried about giving artificial insemination to a woman when he thought that the couple might not make suitable parents. Should the motives of the couple seeking artificial insemination be examined? Should a doctor consider simply the well-being of his or her patient and prescribe a child? These are tough questions and tough decisions. What rights has the child in all of this?

The selection of donors is also a problem that deserves some attention by society. It is known that medical students are one group of donors. Some donors are paid. In some cases the payment is an incentive to be a donor. Should donors be paid? What medical checks should be made of donors? The semen is examined and checks are usually made for venereal disease. The donor’s family’s medical history is sometimes checked. To what extent will the incentive of money also be an incentive to withhold family medical history? The records of donors are usually destroyed. This could have profound medical implications, apart from anything else. The position of the child must also be considered. Most adoptive parents tell their children that they are adopted. Should the same practice be followed when children have been conceived through A.1.D.? If the parents do not tell a child, someone else might. Both artificial insemination by donor and in-vitro fertilisation have the potential to bring much personal happiness. Unless society deals with the problems associated with them, they also have the potential to bring personal and social tragedy.