The right to family life: Why the genetic link requirement for surrogacy should be struck out
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Background. South African surrogacy law includes a provision, known as the genetic link requirement, that commissioning parents must use their own gametes for the conception of a surrogate child. As a result, infertile persons who cannot contribute gametes for the conception of a child are prohibited from accessing surrogacy as a way to establish families. The genetic link requirement was previously the subject of a constitutional challenge, but the challenge was rejected by a divided Constitutional Court bench with a seven-to-four majority. The genetic link requirement is again being challenged in a new lawsuit.
Objective. In light of the history of the issue, this article investigates the viability of relying on infertile persons’ right to family life in the new lawsuit.
Method. The investigation takes the form of a human rights analysis.
Results. The right to family life was not considered in the previous case. As such, the right to family life constitutes a new legal issue that falls outside the scope of the precedent set by the Constitutional Court, and can therefore be relied upon. The genetic link requirement is a clear violation of infertile persons’ right to family life, which includes the right to establish a family. Potential justifications for such violation are considered, but found wanting. Accordingly, the genetic link requirement is unconstitutional and should be struck out.
Conclusion. The outcome of the previous lawsuit was an injustice towards infertile persons. The new lawsuit presents an opportunity for this injustice to be rectified by vindicating infertile persons’ right to family life.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
The SAJBL is published under an Attribution-Non Commercial International Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY-NC 4.0) License. Under this license, authors agree to make articles available to users, without permission or fees, for any lawful, non-commercial purpose. Users may read, copy, or re-use published content as long as the author and original place of publication are properly cited.
Exceptions to this license model is allowed for UKRI and research funded by organisations requiring that research be published open-access without embargo, under a CC-BY licence. As per the journals archiving policy, authors are permitted to self-archive the author-accepted manuscript (AAM) in a repository.
How to Cite
References
South Africa. Children’s Act No. 38 of 2005. https://www.gov.za/documents/ childrens-act (accessed 14 December 2022).
AB v Minister of Social Development 2016 (2) SA 27 (GP).
AB v Minister of Social Development 2017 (3) SA 570 (CC).
Golombok S. Expert opinion filed in AB v Minister of Social Development 2016 (2) SA 27 (GP) and AB v Minister of Social Development 2017 (3) SA 570 (CC).
Thaldar DW. Post-truth jurisprudence: The case of AB v Minister of Social Development. S Afr J Hum Rights 2018;34(2):231-253. https://doi.org/10.1080/02587203.2018.1497124
Thaldar D. The Constitution as an instrument of prejudice: A critique of AB v Minister of Social Development. Const Court Rev 2019;9(1):343-361. https://doi. org/10.2989/ccr.2019.0013
Boniface AE. The genetic link requirement for surrogacy: A family cannot be defined by genetic lineage. Tydskrif Suid-Afr Reg 2017;1:190-206. https://hdl. handle.net/10520/EJC-659204745
Van Niekerk C. Assisted reproductive technologies and the right to reproduce under South African law. PER/PELJ 2017;20(1):1-31. https://doi. org/10.17159/1727-3781/2017/v20i0a1305
Meyerson D. Surrogacy, geneticism and equality: The case of AB v Minister of Social Development. Const Court Rev 2019;9(1):317-341. https://doi.org/10.2989/ ccr.2019.0012
Shozi B. Something old, something new: Applying reproductive rights to new reproductive technologies in South Africa. S Afr J Hum Rights 2020;36(1):1-24. https://doi.org/10.1080/02587203.2020.1776632
Metz T. Questioning South Africa’s ‘genetic link’ requirement for surrogacy. S Afr J Bioeth Law 2014;7(1):34-39. https://doi.org/10.7196/sajbl.314
Ex Parte DW [2022] ZAKZPHC 11.
KB v Minister of Social Development (966/2022 ZAMPMBHC, pleadings stage). 14. Prince v Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development 2017 (4) SA 299(WCC).
Canada (Attorney General) v Bedford 2018 SCC 72. https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/13389/index.do
Bernstein v Bester 1996 (2) SA 751 (CC).
Nandutu v Minister of Home Affairs 2019 (5) SA 325 (CC).
Parliamentary Ad Hoc Committee on Surrogate Motherhood. Report. 11 February1999. Cape Town: Parliament;1999.
Camps Bay Ratepayers’ and Residents’ Association v Harrison 2011 (4) SA 42 (CC). 20. Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996. https://www.gov.za/documents/constitution-republic-south-africa-1996
NM v Smith 2007 (5) SA 250 (CC).
Quoted and relied upon in: British American Tobacco South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Minister of Health [2012] ZASCA 107.
Frith L, Sawyer N, Kramer W. Forming a family with sperm donation: A survey of
non-biological parents. Reproductive BioMedicine Online 2012;24:709-718.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2012.01.013
Drewes CT. Anonymous sperm donor preferences of non-genetic mothers [master’s dissertation]. Northampton, Massachusetts: Smith College; 2009. https://scholarworks.smith.edu/theses/1191/
Rodrigues M. Expert opinion 1, filed in AB v Minister of Social Development 2016 (2) SA 27 (GP) and AB v Minister of Social Development 2017 (3) SA 570 (CC). Case index pp 852-867.
Ex Parte MS [2014] ZAGPPHC 457.
See, for example, Ex Parte KAF 2019 (2) SA 510 (GJ).
Mokomane Z, Tamsen JR, The Directorate: Adoptions and International Social
Services, National Department of Social Development. Adoption in South Africa: Trends and patterns in social work practice. Child Fam Soc Work 2012;17(3):347- 358. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2206.2011.00789.x
De Caires M. Expert opinion, filed in AB v Minister of Social Development 2016 (2) SA 27 (GP) and AB v Minister of Social Development 2017 (3) SA 570 (CC). Case index pp 1289-1297.
Bloem M. Expert opinion, filed in AB v Minister of Social Development 2016 (2) SA 27 (GP) and AB v Minister of Social Development 2017 (3) SA 570 (CC). Case index pp 1298-1302.
Golombok S. Love and truth: What really matters for children born through third‐ party assisted reproduction. Child Dev Perspect 2021;15(2):103-109. https://doi. org/10.1111/cdep.12406
Golombok S. The psychological wellbeing of ART children: What have we learned from 40 years of research? Reprod Biomed Online 2020;41(4):743-746. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2020.08.012
Hoffmann v South African Airways 2001 (1) SA 1 (CC).
Rosenberg W. The mother’s right to privacy in infant abandonment cases. Tydskrif Suid-Afr Reg 2022;1:92-105. https://doi.org/10.47348/tsar/2022/i1a5
Gartrell N, Bos H. US National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study: Psychological adjustment of 17-year-old adolescents. Pediatrics 2010;126(1):28-36 https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2009-3153
Van Gelderen L, Bos HMW, Gartrell N, Hermanns J, Perrin EC. Quality of life of adolescents raised from birth by lesbian mothers: The US National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study. J Dev Behav Pediatr (2012);33(1):1-7. https://doi. org/10.1097/dbp.0b013e31823b62af
Thaldar D, Shozi B. Is open-identity gamete donation lawful in South Africa? S Afr Med J 2022;112(6):409-412. https://doi.org/10.7196/samj.2022.v112i6.16368
QG v CS [2021] ZAGPPHC 366.
Thaldar D. Egg donors’ motivations, experiences, and opinions: A survey of egg donors in South Africa. PLoS One 2020;15(1):1-13. https://doi.org/10.1371/ journal.pone.0226603
Van Der Merwe v Road Accident Fund 2006 (4) SA 230 (CC).
Mabasa LF. The psychological impact of infertility on African women and their
families. Doctoral thesis. Pretoria: University of South Africa; 2002. http://hdl. handle.net/10500/974 (accessed 14 December 2022).