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

    • ruffers
      Cat Flap

      By ruffers · Posted

      Colin.    One for the old school.   Just saying.
    • Sue
      Fireworks

      By Sue · Posted

      Signed, and I will share it elsewhere, thank you for posting this. It's got nearly 70,000 signatures at present, and apparently runs till February.
    • SophieA
      Fireworks

      By SophieA · Posted

      There’s a couple of Gov petitions going on in relation to fireworks at the moment but this one is for banning them entirely except organised displays if anyone wants to sign. This is the only sensible way forward in my view. No one should be able to let them off in gardens or anywhere like that, it’s crazy. I am surprised some of you have said it hasn’t been as bad this year. I live near DKH Saino and it’s been absolutely terrible my way for days. This petition gained about 20,000 just in the last day or so so clearly the appetite is there! https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/732559
    • Sue
      Fireworks

      By Sue · Posted

      I'd have thought they could use some of  their income from hiring out a large part of Brockwell Park in the summer (therefore, as I understand it, preventing local residents from using much of it) to put on a firework display there  in the autumn which might somewhat make up to those residents for the previous loss of use of the park. And also generate goodwill.

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...