Should intrusions by political bodies into personal reproductive decisions be an Australian fact of life?
Babies are generally very good news for Australian families, and nationally there is acclaim that our previously declining birth rate has been on a clear rise since 2004 (Box).1 In part, this rise has been a result of welcome government intervention, and several articles and letters in this issue of the Journal relate to reproduction and government subsidy.1-7
The full article is accessible to AMA members and paid subscribers. Login to read more or purchase a subscription now.
Please note: institutional and Research4Life access to the MJA is now provided through Wiley Online Library.
- 1 Sydney IVF, Sydney, NSW.
- 2 Access Australia, Sydney, NSW.
Correspondence: robert.jansen@sydneyivf.com
- 1. Lain SJ, Ford JB, Raynes-Greenow CH, et al. The impact of the Baby Bonus payment in New South Wales: who is having “one for the country”? <eMJA full text>
- 2. de Costa CM, Wenitong M. Could the Baby Bonus be a bonus for babies? <eMJA full text>
- 3. Wang YA, Sullivan EA, Healy DL, Black DA. Perinatal outcomes after assisted reproductive technology treatment in Australia and New Zealand: single versus double embryo transfer. <eMJA full text>
- 4. Middleton SL, Buist MD. Sperm removal and dead or dying patients: a dilemma for emergency departments and intensive care units. <eMJA full text>
- 5. Molloy D, Hall BA, Ilbery M, et al. Oocyte freezing: timely reproductive insurance? <eMJA full text>
- 6. Infertility Treatment Act or forced sterilisation program [letter]? <eMJA full text>
- 7. Findlay J. Infertility Treatment Act or forced sterilisation program [letter in reply]? <eMJA full text>
- 8. Wang YA, Dean JH, Badgery-Parker T, Sullivan EA. Assisted reproduction technology in Australia and New Zealand 2006. Sydney: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare National Perinatal Statistics Unit, 2008: 49. (AIHW Cat. No. PER 43.)
- 9. Jansen R. The clinical impact of in vitro fertilization. II. Regulation, money and research. Med J Aust 1987; 146: 362-366.
- 10. Jansen RPS. Benefits and challenges brought by improved results from in vitro fertilization. Intern Med J 2005; 35: 108-117.
- 11. Laws P, Grayson N, Sullivan EA. Australia’s mothers and babies 2004. Sydney: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare National Perinatal Statistics Unit, 2006: 71. (AIHW Cat. No. PER 34.)
- 12. Jansen RPS. The effect of female age on the likelihood of a live birth from one in-vitro fertilisation treatment. Med J Aust 2003; 178: 258-261. <MJA full text>
- 13. Jansen RPS. Evidence-based ethics and the regulation of reproduction. Hum Reprod 1997; 12: 2068-2075.
- 14. Huxley A. Brave new world. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin Books, 1959.
- 15. Edwards RG, Beard HK. UK law dictated the destruction of 3000 cryopreserved human embryos. Hum Reprod 1997; 12: 3-5.
- 16. Deech R. A reply from the chairman of the HFEA. Hum Reprod 1997; 12: 5-6.
- 17. Jansen RPS, McCaughey JD. A background paper on in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer. National Health and Medical Research Council. Ethics in medical research. Canberra: AGPS, 1982: 31-39.
- 18. Australian Health Ethics Committee. Submission to the Legislation Review Committee (Prohibition of Human Cloning Act 2002 and Research Involving Human Embryos Act 2002) (Chair, Hon Justice John Lockhart, AC). Canberra: National Health and Medical Research Council, 2005: 32.
- 19. The Vatican. Apostolicae Sedis Moderationi, 1869 Acta Pii IX (Rome, 1871) I, V, 55-72.
- 20. Walton [Lord]. Embryo research — why the Cardinal is wrong. J Med Ethics 1990; 16: 185-186.
- 21. McBain v State of Victoria & Ors [2000] FCA 1009.
- 22. Roy Morgan Research Centre. Australians endorse using human embryos for treating disease. Finding No. 3481, 13 Dec 2001.
- 23. Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee. Assisted Reproductive Treatment Bill 2008. Alert Digest No 12 of 2008. 11 Nov 2008.
Online responses are no longer available. Please refer to our instructions for authors page for more information.