Abstract: While some are proponents of restrictive legislation, others have
argued that there is too much legislation for ART and cite existing legal
choices for women in relation to human reproduction which respect individual
autonomy. It has been argued that where genuine, informed decision-making
occurs and there is a process for legitimate ethical review, that restrictive
laws make little sense. In some cases restrictive legislation denies access to
appropriate treatment for couples that have no other means of forming their
families. History reveals that governments can make ill informed, expedient
decisions, which are not necessarily in the best interests of their citizens.
Italy provides a sobering example. Legislation is difficult to repeal and in a
high-tech, rapidly evolving area such as ART, even the most well intended
legislation could quickly prove obsolete. In Australia, crucial to achieving good outcomes in the regulation
of ART has been the involvement of patients in legislation, accreditation and
policy, working in partnership with health care providers, the media and
members of parliament. This has ensured transparency and quality in service
delivery. It is also appropriate, as it recognises that ultimately it is
patients who must live with the consequences of policy and treatment
decisions.
