Access to Assisted Reproductive Technologies in Australia: Time for Legislative Change in Queensland and the Northern Territory to Remove the Ability to Discriminate Based on Relationship Status or Sexuality.

IF 0.6 Q2 LAW Journal of Law and Medicine Pub Date : 2023-05-01
Alisha McGrady, Malcolm Smith, Sonia Allan
{"title":"Access to Assisted Reproductive Technologies in Australia: Time for Legislative Change in Queensland and the Northern Territory to Remove the Ability to Discriminate Based on Relationship Status or Sexuality.","authors":"Alisha McGrady,&nbsp;Malcolm Smith,&nbsp;Sonia Allan","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This article examines legislative provisions in Queensland and the Northern Territory, which allow for assisted reproductive technology (ART) service providers to discriminate against people based on their relationship status and/or sexuality. We provide several arguments that add weight to the recent proposal of the Queensland Human Rights Commission that the relevant section of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld) be repealed, and extend our arguments to the Northern Territory. The provisions in both jurisdictions are out of sync with key legal developments in the rest of Australia, do not accord with societal views, and are potentially invalid due to federal law. Further, the Queensland provision is potentially incompatible with the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld). Although currently ART service providers do not appear to discriminate based on relationship status or sexuality, the current legislative framework leaves open the potential to do so, without an avenue for those impacted to challenge it in law. We conclude such provisions should be repealed.</p>","PeriodicalId":45522,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Law and Medicine","volume":"30 1","pages":"191-211"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Law and Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This article examines legislative provisions in Queensland and the Northern Territory, which allow for assisted reproductive technology (ART) service providers to discriminate against people based on their relationship status and/or sexuality. We provide several arguments that add weight to the recent proposal of the Queensland Human Rights Commission that the relevant section of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld) be repealed, and extend our arguments to the Northern Territory. The provisions in both jurisdictions are out of sync with key legal developments in the rest of Australia, do not accord with societal views, and are potentially invalid due to federal law. Further, the Queensland provision is potentially incompatible with the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld). Although currently ART service providers do not appear to discriminate based on relationship status or sexuality, the current legislative framework leaves open the potential to do so, without an avenue for those impacted to challenge it in law. We conclude such provisions should be repealed.

分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在澳大利亚获得辅助生殖技术:是时候在昆士兰和北领地进行立法改革,以消除基于关系状况或性取向的歧视能力。
本文审查了昆士兰州和北领地的立法规定,这些规定允许辅助生殖技术(ART)服务提供者基于其关系状况和/或性行为歧视人们。我们提出了若干论点,这些论点加强了昆士兰州人权委员会最近提出的废除1991年《反歧视法》(昆士兰州)有关章节的建议,并将我们的论点扩展到北领地。这两个司法管辖区的规定与澳大利亚其他地区的关键法律发展不同步,不符合社会观点,并且由于联邦法律而可能无效。此外,昆士兰州的规定可能与《2019年人权法案》(昆士兰州)不相容。虽然目前抗逆转录病毒治疗服务提供者似乎没有基于关系状况或性行为进行歧视,但目前的立法框架为这样做留下了可能,而受影响的人没有在法律上对其提出挑战的途径。我们的结论是,这些规定应该废除。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
63
期刊最新文献
Termination Laws in Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand - Do They Align with Midwives' Scope of Practice? 'Truly, Madly, Deeply': Using Law to Compel Health and Lifestyle Influencers to Tell the Truth. Tasering Patients - A Bioethical Assessment of Taser Use Against Mental Health Inpatients in New Zealand. Voluntary Assisted Dying and Conscientious Objection: An Analysis from Victoria, Australia. Section 19(2) of the Health Insurance Act 1973 Prevents Prisoners Accessing Medicare: Fact or Fiction?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1