Learning from cross-border reproduction

Jackson, E; Millbank, J; Karpin, I; Stuhmcke, A

Learning from cross-border reproduction

Jackson, E Millbank, J

Karpin, I

Stuhmcke, A

Permalink

Publication Type:: Journal Article
Citation:: Medical Law Review, 2017, 25 (1), pp. 23 - 46
Issue Date:: 2017-01-01

Open Access

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Open Access

This item is open access.

Adobe PDF

Download Published VersionAdobe PDF (191.2 kB)

View on publisher's site

View statistics

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	Jackson, E	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Millbank, J https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8934-7945	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Karpin, I https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9326-3421	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Stuhmcke, A https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3679-7301	en_US
dc.date.issued	2017-01-01	en_US
dc.identifier.citation	Medical Law Review, 2017, 25 (1), pp. 23 - 46	en_US
dc.identifier.issn	0967-0742	en_US
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/123325
dc.description.abstract	© The Author 2017. Published by Oxford University Press; all rights reserved. Drawing upon the preliminary findings of an Australian empirical project on cross-border reproduction (CBR), this article argues that regulators and policymakers could learn from the experiences of those who travel overseas in order to access fertility treatment and surrogacy. It makes four principal observations. First, the distinction between so-called 'altruistic' and 'commercial' gamete donation and surrogacy is increasingly unsustainable and is not experienced as meaningful by many participants in CBR. Secondly, the status of the law in CBR is profoundly equivocal; for participants it is often there and not there at the same time. Thirdly, self-sourced information, from the internet and more specifically social media such as Facebook, is now the principal source of information and peer support for reproductive travellers. Fourthly, and relatedly, domestic reproductive services providers are often sidestepped. If one of the goals of regulation is to minimise the risk of harm to participants, it is not clear that it is currently achieving this aim, and this article argues that any reforms will only work if they are more responsive to the reality of CBR.	en_US
dc.relation	http://purl.org/au-research/grants/arc/DP150101057
dc.relation.ispartof	Medical Law Review	en_US
dc.relation.isbasedon	10.1093/medlaw/fww045	en_US
dc.subject.classification	Law	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Humans	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Reproductive Techniques, Assisted	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Surrogate Mothers	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Pregnancy	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Adult	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Australia	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Female	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Medical Tourism	en_US
dc.title	Learning from cross-border reproduction	en_US
dc.type	Journal Article
utslib.citation.volume	1	en_US
utslib.citation.volume	25	en_US
utslib.for	1801 Law	en_US
pubs.embargo.period	Not known	en_US
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/e-Press
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Law
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Strength - HJ - Health Justice
utslib.copyright.status	open_access
pubs.issue	1	en_US
pubs.publication-status	Published	en_US
pubs.volume	25	en_US

Abstract:

© The Author 2017. Published by Oxford University Press; all rights reserved. Drawing upon the preliminary findings of an Australian empirical project on cross-border reproduction (CBR), this article argues that regulators and policymakers could learn from the experiences of those who travel overseas in order to access fertility treatment and surrogacy. It makes four principal observations. First, the distinction between so-called 'altruistic' and 'commercial' gamete donation and surrogacy is increasingly unsustainable and is not experienced as meaningful by many participants in CBR. Secondly, the status of the law in CBR is profoundly equivocal; for participants it is often there and not there at the same time. Thirdly, self-sourced information, from the internet and more specifically social media such as Facebook, is now the principal source of information and peer support for reproductive travellers. Fourthly, and relatedly, domestic reproductive services providers are often sidestepped. If one of the goals of regulation is to minimise the risk of harm to participants, it is not clear that it is currently achieving this aim, and this article argues that any reforms will only work if they are more responsive to the reality of CBR.

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/123325