Donor-conceived people's views and experiences of their genetic origins: a critical analysis of the research evidence

This article reports on a systematic review of English language, peer-reviewed publications from 13 empirical studies with donor-conceived children and adults regarding their experiences and perceptions of donor conception. A total of 19 articles that met the inclusion criteria were reviewed. These were identified by means of a bibliographic search of four electronic databases for the period 1990-2011 and supplemented by the authors' personal knowledge of work in this field. No reports from such studies appeared prior to 2000, and more than half have been published since 2008, demonstrating the relative novelty of research in this field. Much of the reviewed research evidence concerns individuals conceived through sperm donation conducted under a regime promoting both anonymity and nondisclosure. Consequently, there is little research that pertains to individuals conceived through other forms of collaborative reproduction, nor to those conceived under arrangements and regimes in which early parental disclosure is both advocated and practised and the identity of the donor and of other genetic relatives may be accessible to donor-conceived individuals. The studies consistently report that most donor-conceived people have an interest in securing information about their genetic and biographical heritage - more information than most of them have been able to obtain. Although a number of methodological limitations in the research base are identified, the authors conclude that the evidence is sufficiently robust to promote the implementation of policies and practices that promote transparency and openness in collaborative reproduction, thus reflecting the importance of maximising future choices and opportunities for donor-conceived people.     

The rights of donor inseminated children to know their genetic origins in Australia

Twenty years after it was recognised that adopted children have rights to understand their origins, the dawn has finally broken with respect to children conceived as a result of the Assisted Reproductive Technologies (ART), specifically donor insemination (DI). Recipients and practitioners of conception technologies focus their energies and ethical deliberation on the achievement of pregnancy and the successful birth of the child. Law, in contrast, must focus beyond birth to enshrine respect for the rights of the child, who is 'not legally capable of defending [his or her] own future interests.' This article undertakes an assessment of what is in the best interests of a child using empirical studies to ground a position that should be adopted by law in Australia. This article also critically evaluates the current legal position of the various States and Territories with regards to a DI conceived child's rights to know of their form of conception; access to identifying information of their donor; at what age they may access information; the position of DI children born before existing legislation; record-keeping; and finally whether international law grants such children rights. Australian children must enjoy the right in theory and practice to know they were donor conceived and the identity of their donor. It is disappointing that New South Wales, as the most recent State to propose legislation on ART, has not utilised international empirical research on the best interests of DI children or even followed the Infertility Treatment Act 1995 (Vic) which seems to be far more progressive in recognising how best to protect the rights of DI children. The current legal position is chaotic. States and Territories should confer power on the Federal Government to legislate uniform and explicit regulation of ART for the benefit of DI children.     

Talking in the dark: Rules to facilitate open debate about lawful access to strongly encrypted information

Strong encryption can prevent anybody from accessing user data, including the technology companies responsible for its implementation. As strong encryption technology has become increasingly prevalent, law enforcement agencies have sought legislation to secure continued lawful access to the data affected. Following analysis of the encryption debates in the United States and the United Kingdom, this article will propose three rules that governments should follow to facilitate open debate and prevent the implementation of unsafe lawful access solutions. Firstly, we will provide context on current encryption policy. Secondly, it will be shown that continuous open debate must be facilitated in order to prevent the implementation of unsafe lawful access solutions. Finally, it will be argued that governments should be held to three rules when engaging in debate about lawful access: legislation governing lawful access must state clearly on its face whether decryption can be mandated; the encryption debate must not be oversimplified or reduced to emotive examples in order to secure public support for unsafe solutions; and safeguards on warrants must not be conflated with safeguards on lawful access mechanisms in order to suggest that solutions are safer than is actually the case.     

Employee and government access to personnel files: rights and requirements.

A maze of record-keeping, disclosure, and privacy statutes and regulations, with accompanying case law, have created a boom in privacy law. Employers find themselves caught in this rising tide, torn between the often conflicting requirements. The issue of access to employee files--by employees, government, and unions--is one of the most difficult issues in this complicated situation. This article discusses recent developments in the field and aims to help readers thread their way through the maze of contradictions and pitfalls confronting employers.     

Blood rights: the body and information privacy

Genetic and other medical technology makes blood, human tissue and other bodily samples an immediate and accessible source of comprehensive personal and health information about individuals. Yet, unlike medical records, bodily samples are not subject to effective privacy protection or other regulation to ensure that individuals have rights to control the collection, use and transfer of such samples. This article examines the existing coverage of privacy legislation, arguments in favour of baseline protection for bodily samples as sources of information and possible approaches to new regulation protecting individual privacy rights in bodily samples.     

Employee rights to privacy and access to personnel records: a new look.

Do employees really enjoy a so-called right to privacy in their employment relationship? To what extent are their rights violated by the pre-employment screening process? These are the questions discussed in this article by David F. Linowes, Boeschenstein Professor of Political Economy and Public Policy and Science at the University of Illinois and recently chairman of the Privacy Protection Study Commission. Citing the availability of data to a prospective employer through credit card companies, banks, insurance companies, mailing lists, health records, and investigative reporting agencies, Professor Linowes makes the point that little is left unknoun when the investigative process is completed. There is no clear line separating what is relevant and what is privileged. The Study Commission's report to Congress suggests guidelines that would insure fairness to all parties.