Page 882 - Week 04 - Tuesday, 20 April 2021
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
In any case, the out-of-pocket costs associated with accessing ART can be a barrier for people wishing to access services or procedures. Of course, some private clinics offer payment plans or access to Afterpay. Individuals can, in fact, choose to access their superannuation to assist in paying for ART or fertility payments. But, as Dr Paterson has outlined, given the challenges associated with successful fertility treatment, that is a big call to make for individuals and couples who are accessing ART services.
Others have spoken about the importance of support services being available to assist in both decision-making and throughout the process. Any person who accesses assisted reproductive technology must be supported with access to counselling by an appropriately trained and experienced professional.
The recent launch by the commonwealth government of the Your IVF Success website does provide increased support to people who are wishing to access IVF by making it easier for them to understand what is involved in the IVF process, and relevant success rates, and to locate a clinic in their local region. But, as has been correctly observed, there are differences across the country in the regulation and oversight of ART clinics, and the extent to which ART is regulated varies throughout Australia, as there is currently no commonwealth legislation that directly regulates ART.
The ACT is not alone in not having specific legislation that regulates ART. Queensland, the Northern Territory and Tasmania are also in this space, although I believe that the Northern Territory does not actually provide any reproductive technology services because they tend to be provided in South Australia.
However, as others have mentioned, there is a framework that governs the provision of ART. The National Health and Medical Research Council—NHMRC—national Ethical guidelines on the use of assisted reproductive technology in clinical practice and research provide an overarching national framework for ART in both clinical practice and research across Australia. All ART service providers are required to comply with these guidelines to be accredited by the Reproductive Technology Accreditation Committee, unless there is a conflict with jurisdictional legislation; then, of course, the jurisdictional legislation takes precedence.
The ethical guidelines encourage data to be collected and maintained in a centralised register by the relevant ART clinic, and each clinic must have policies and procedures in place regarding the collection, storage and release of data. So although there is no central register for sperm, egg or embryo donors in the ACT, the ethical guidelines list a minimum set of information to be recorded for each ART activity. Certainly, as part of this review, and absolutely supporting Dr Paterson’s motion in this regard, it would be imperative to look at the lessons learned in other jurisdictions and to ensure that the approach to any central register is considered as part of that work.
As other members have talked about, and as everyone is aware, this subject matter is very sensitive for donors, families and the children born from ART. Mr Steel spoke eloquently about the impact of ART and the impact of various historical decisions on
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video