Jump to content

Recommended Posts

The boy and his microscope: interpreting section 56(1) of the National Health Act

Donrich Willem Jordaan


Abstract


This article looks at the classic conflict between freedom and propriety with reference to the use of human gametes (sperm and egg cells) in the South African law. The core question that is addressed is whether it is legal to use one?s own gametes, or other?s with their consent, for non-medical, non-sexual-intercourse purposes. This question is answered divergently by the two possible interpretations of the relevant statutory law, section 56(1) of the National Health Act, which is formulated ambivalently. Since these two possible interpretations are representative of the two poles of the freedom-propriety conflict, this matter can be perceived as a test of the depth of South African law?s commitment to the principle of freedom. Section 56(1) is analysed using the applicable common law presumptions, as well as human rights. To illustrate the practical implications of these analyses, a hypothetical case study of a boy who studies sperm cells under his microscope at home is sketched and used throughout the article. The analyses conclude that the interpretation must be followed that answers the core question in the affirmative (in favour of freedom), namely that it is indeed legal to use one?s own gametes, or other?s with their consent, for non-medical, non-sexual-intercourse purposes.


Full Text: PDF


This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial Works License.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Its a mistake a 4 year old made 😂😂😂 forget it and move on
    • We don’t even need Victorian values. Many of theses monstrosities are made by Japanese companies but would never be sold in Japan because in Japan the dimensions of cars are strictly regulated due to their narrow street layout. I grew up in terraced streets in the 1970s, playing football and even cricket among the then relatively few parked cars. To walk through ED and see every square inch of every street taken up by a parked car and not a child playing is like a Silent Spring.
    • Word to the wise: please be careful if you’re around Dulwich Village during the school run.  While walking on the pavement down Carlton Avenue this morning c. 8.45am, I was hit from behind by a child riding a bicycle. When I raised this with his father, he (the father) behaved inappropriately. I highlight the following tactics deployed against me, so if you choose to say anything, you may come off better in any exchange than I. The father chose to make it more about how I reacted, rather than what had happened, namely that his son was riding on a pavement, seemingly without supervision, out of his father’s line of sight. The father claimed I was over-reacting, said that his son was 4-years old and didn’t do it deliberately. He didn’t ask me if I was alright. And apologised with a ‘but’: “I’m sorry if he hit your leg, but your reaction is over the top.”  He took no responsibility for his child’s action or his lack of parental supervision. As I walked away, I heard him and two other adults talking and laughing about my reaction – yes, laughing.  I don’t think he or his son learned anything useful from the incident about keeping themselves and others safe, such that it would change their behaviour. I did and share it here as to place, time, nature of incident, minimising tactics etc. as a heads-up to others. I didn’t sustain any injuries or damage to my clothing or property. Others who are older/younger, have mobility issues, walk with buggies, children, pets etc. may fare differently. Forewarned is forearmed, guys.
    • Found on Goodrich Rd
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...