Assisted reproductive technologies and the pitfalls of unregulated biomedical innovation

This Article suggests that the time has come to reconsider the safety and effectiveness of fertility drugs in order to combat some of the continuing problems arising from the overly aggressive use of assisted reproductive technologies, especially the health hazards associated with multifetal pregnancies. After critically assessing the arguments made by some commentators about the power of malpractice law to curb any abuses of fertility clinics and specialists, the Article concludes that the Food and Drug Administration should consider restricting or withdrawing pharmaceutical products used to induce ovulation. Although such a drastic move would not prevent the continued use of in vitro fertilization and other advanced fertility treatments, it would dramatically reduce the frequency of multifetal pregnancies, and it should not run afoul of any constitutional protections of procreative liberty.     

Assisted reproductive technologies: professional and legal restrictions in Australian clinics

The professional and legal regulation of assisted reproductive technologies (ART) in Australia is a vast maze of intersecting laws and guidelines which place restrictions on the provision of services such as infertility treatment, surrogacy, sex selection for social reasons, donor insemination, pre-implantation diagnosis and human embryo research. This study investigated the application of these restrictions on clinical practice in New South Wales, a relatively unregulated State, and Victoria, a relatively highly regulated State. The results of the survey indicate that the range of ART services in Victorian clinics was far more limited than in New South Wales clinics. The Victorian clinics uniformly restricted access of single and lesbian women and did not offer social sex selection procedures. The New South Wales clinics adopted different polices regarding these services. It was found that restrictive laws governing "social" issues have a significant impact on the availability of ART services and some respondents seemed unclear about the nature of restrictions and laws relevant to their work. It was also found that "reproductive tourism" is prevalent and restrictions were circumnavigated by patients with assistance from clinics. It was concluded that more evidence is required to evaluate regulation in this field of medicine.     

US concept wars,civil liberties and the technologies of fortification

The horrific events of September 11, 2001 led to calls for the deployment of state-of-the-art security systems and the creation of an “invisible shield” to protect America. Such proposals immediately triggered debate about the constitutional ethics of surveillance in the United States. While there has been widespread support for the surrender of some cherished civil liberties in the war against terror, surveillance, especially the visual variety, is still seen to be innately un-American. Technologies like biometric face recognition systems, critics argue, are not consistent with the values of an open society and should consequently be considered with great caution. The widespread introduction of such invasive technology, pundits claim, would signal a victory for the terrorists.Many American commentators fail to recognize, however, that the United States, far from being the open society they imagine, has long been characterized by exclusion. Moreover, such exclusion is increasingly enforced by the same high technology of which biometrics is a part. In fact, for at least a decade before the declaration of the war on terror, the United States has been undergoing a multifaceted process of fortification both within its cities and at the US-Mexican frontier. Investigation of this phenomena reveals the central role of the US’s longest running concept war, the war on drugs. This paper argues that within this narrative biometric surveillance and the creation of “an invisible wall” should not be regarded as a break with American traditions but as the next organic phase of an ongoing process of fortifying the United States.     

Genetic technologies and the regulation of reproductive decision-making in Australia

This article provides a critical analysis of the current Australian regulatory landscape at the interface between genetics and reproductive decision-making. The authors argue that a comparative analysis with other countries and international law and a contextual examination of the way law regulates concepts such as disease and health, abnormality and normality is necessary before we can develop appropriate policy and legislative responses in this area. Specific genetic testing technologies are considered including prenatal genetic testing, preimplantation genetic diagnosis and inheritable genetic modification. An increasing number of members of the Australian community are using genetic testing technologies when they decide to have a baby. The authors argue that as concepts of disease and health vary among members of the community and the potential to test for traits other than illness increases, a new tension arises between an ethic of individual choice and a role for government in regulating reproductive decision-making.