Jump to content
Everywhere

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

    • HeadNun
      Co op lordship lane

      By HeadNun · Posted

      Oh dear, Angelina - get ready for the pile-on!
    • Angelina
      Co op lordship lane

      By Angelina · Posted

      I wonder if we haven't been suitably offended - did we miss  a trick in allowing the OP to call her a woman - perhaps the person identifies as gender fluid (or other) and is offended.
    • HeadNun
      Co op lordship lane

      By HeadNun · Posted

      Would you have jumped down the OP's throat if they'd described the perp as white, 50s, male?  How we morphed from a hurried post about a shop-lifter, to rampant racism, migrants and single mothers, I do not know.  And I thought the thread about hot dogs was hysterical....
    • heartblock
      Co op lordship lane

      By heartblock · Posted

      Yes tell the police..give them a description… what is the case for describing here, it’s irrelevant information. What’s the percentage of people in ED fitting that description. I’m sure the Daily Mail thinks all the irrelevant information about ‘migrants’ , ‘single mothers’  ‘etc etc is ‘fine’. Once on social media it instantly affects what people think and that’s the issue. It matters.    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/jun/27/black-children-arrested-london-more-likely-criminalised-than-white-children

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...