Medicine and the Law
Fertility clinic consent forms and the disposition of reproductive material upon a fertility patient’s death: Legal reflections
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.7196/SAMJ.2022.v112i9.16610Keywords:
fertility, consent formsAbstract
South African fertility clinics often include a provision in their consent forms that deals with the disposition of reproductive material (gametes and embryos) after a fertility patient’s death. This practice is problematic as such a provision is not legally valid. If the clinic acts in pursuance of such a provision upon a fertility patient’s death, the fertility clinic may be committing a civil wrong and a crime. Accordingly, consent forms should not include any provision that deals with the disposition of reproductive material after a fertility patient’s death. Instead, to address the practical concern of keeping reproductive material cryopreserved without receiving payment, fertility clinics’ storage agreements should use non-payment by fertility patients (or their successors in title) as the trigger event for the disposition of reproductive material. The importance of dealing with reproductive material in both its property rights dimension and its personality rights dimension is highlighted.
References
NC v Drs Aevitas Inc t/a Aevitas Fertility Clinic (23236/2017) (2018) ZAWCHC (23 January 2018).
Thaldar DW. Posthumous conception: Recent legal developments in South Africa. S Afr Med J 2018;108(6):471-473. https://doi.org/10.7196/samj.2018.v108i6.13182
Shozi B. Legal issues in posthumous conception using gametes removed from a comatose male: The
case of Ex Parte SN. S Afr J Bioethics Law 2021;14(1):28-32. https://doi.org/10.7196/SAJBL.2021.v14i1.728
Thaldar DW, Shozi B. South Africa’s latest medically assisted reproduction draft regulations: Close, but no cigar. Tydskrif vir die Suid-Afrikaanse Reg 2022(1):1-24. https://doi.org/10.47348/TSAR/2022/i1a1 5. Robinson R. The legal nature of the embryo: Legal subject or legal object? Potchefstroom Electron Law J 2018;21:1-31. https://doi.org/10.17159/1727-3781/2018/v21i0a2914
Thaldar DW. The in vitro embryo and the law: The ownership issue and a response to Robinson. Potchefstroom Electron Law J 2020;23:1-20. https://doi.org/10.17159/1727-3781/2020/v23i0a6217
South Africa. National Health Act 61 of 2003. Regulations Relating to Artificial Fertilisation of Persons. GN R175. Government Gazette No. 35099, 2 March 2012. https://www.gov.za/sites/default/files/gcis_document/201409/35099rg9699gon175.pdf (accessed 9 April 2022).
Thaldar DW, Shozi B. The legal status of human biological material use for research. S Afr Law J
;138(4):881-907. https://doi.org/10.47348/SALJ/v138/i4a9 9. Kumalo v Cycle Lab (Pty) Ltd [2011] ZAGPJHC 56.
McAlpine v McAlpine NO 1997 (1) SA 736 (SCA).
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Licensing Information
The SAMJ 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.
Publishing Rights
Authors grant the Publisher the exclusive right to publish, display, reproduce and/or distribute the Work in print and electronic format and in any medium known or hereafter developed, including for commercial use. The Author also agrees that the Publisher may retain in print or electronic format more than one copy of the Work for the purpose of preservation, security and back-up.
