Jump to content

Counting game

????

By ????
in The Lounge

 Share

Recommended Posts

antijen

antijen

Posted
Posted

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
 Share
Go to topic listing
  • Advertise Here

  • Latest Discussions

    • CPR Dave
      Councillor McAsh defects to the Greens

      By CPR Dave · Posted

      They're a fringe party with totally leftfield policies. No one actually wants them in government and by the time of the next general election everyone will see them for who they are.    Their leader even offered a hypnotherapy session to a lady to increase the size of her breasts.  https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/zack-polanski-green-party-hypnotherapy-b2819071.html They are total cranks, just like Reform.   
    • Sue
      Councillor McAsh defects to the Greens

      By Sue · Posted

      What do you base those statements on?
    • Penguin68
      Councillor McAsh defects to the Greens

      By Penguin68 · Posted

      I suppose I'd assume that Councillor McCash, who is, as I recall, a self-confessed revolutionary Marxist, had hoped to take Southwark Labour down his chosen route - when he lost his leadership bid he must then have been looking for a party which shared his ultra-left views (ultra-left at least in the light of Starmer's interpretation of socialism). The Greens, for him, clearly fit that role. After that his timing was all about benefiting his chosen (new) party - at least he didn't stand for Labour and then defect giving the Greens an unexpected 3 year seat. As someone who doesn't share the wings of his political position I don't wish him well (politically) - but neither do I wish him ill as a 'punishment' for his defection.  
    • CPR Dave
      Franklins is being sold

      By CPR Dave · Posted

      Agree with all the sentiments above. Hope it doesn't change too much and above all I really hope it stays independent and avoids becoming the same as all the chain pubs in the area.

East Dulwich Forum

Established in 2006, we are an online community discussion forum for people who live, work in and visit SE22.

Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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