Psycho-social, ethical and legal arguments for and against the retrospective release of information about donors to donor-conceived individuals in Australia.
In the February 2011 report on its inquiry into the past and present practices of donor conception in Australia, the Australian Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee called for the introduction of legislation to regulate donor conception in all jurisdictions that do not have it in place "as a matter of priority". It further called for the establishment, "as a matter of priority", of a national register of donors to enable donor-conceived individuals to access identifying information about their donor. The Senate Committee left open the question as to whether the legislation and central register should have retrospective effect. This article focuses upon that question. It shows that arguments concerning the privacy, confidentiality and anonymity of some donors who may wish to remain anonymous are outweighed by the manifest injustice faced by donor-conceived individuals who are denied access to such information, as well as their families and donors who wish to exchange this information,
Deakin University.
Sonia
S
Allan
D022126:Access to Information / Q000941:ethics / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D001315:Australia; D003219:Confidentiality / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D030881:Disclosure / Q000941:ethics / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D007316:Insemination, Artificial, Heterologous; D008297:Male; D018587:Oocyte Donation / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D014019:Tissue Donors / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*