Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-11T07:05:11.999Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Damaging the Future: The Health Rights of Children and the Issue of Short-Termism; Issues Facing Australian Bioethicists

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 May 2018

SALLY DALTON-BROWN
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract:

This article considers recent ethical topics in Australia relating to the health rights of children in the contexts of (1) detention centers, (2) vaccination, and (3) procreative liberty, within a wider framework of discussion of the competing rights of society, parents, the child, and future generations.

Keywords

Australiadetention centerschildren’s health rightsvaccinationsprocreative liberty
Type
Special Section: Bioethics Beyond Borders
Information
Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics , Volume 27 , Issue 3 , July 2018 , pp. 440 - 446
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1. Assisted dying: states rally as bills offer chance to legalise voluntary euthanasia, The Guardian May 17, 2017; available at https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/may/17/assisted-dying-states-rally-as-bills-offer-chance-to-legalise-voluntary-euthanasia (last accessed 22 Aug 2017). See also Tasmania votes down voluntary euthanasia bill for third time in 10 years, ABC News May 25 2017; available at http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-05-24/tasmania-votes-down-euthanasia-bill/8555882 (last accessed 22 Aug 2017).

2. Ankeny, RA. Bioethics down under. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 2003;12:242–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

3. Brolan CE, Durham J. Building Queensland’s human capital: the case for health advocacy. Medical Journal of Australia 2013;199:574.

4. Mendez JE, Report of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. A/HRC/28/68, 2015; available at http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Torture/SRTorture/Pages/SRTortureIndex.aspx (last accessed 18 Sept 2015).

5. See Doherty B. Australia’s offshore detention damages asylum seekers because it’s supposed to. The Guardian, January 18, 2016; available at https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/jan/19/australias-offshore-detention-damages-asylum-seekers-because-its-supposed-to (last accessed 23 Aug 2017).

6. Durham J, Brolan CE, Lui CW, Whittaker M. The need for a rights-based public health approach to Australian asylum seeker health. Public Health Reviews 2016;37:6.

7. Goldenberg H. The clinician and detention. Journal of Medical Ethics 2016;42:416–7; see also Essex R. Torture, healthcare and Australian immigration detention. Journal of Medical Ethics 2016;42:418–9 and Isaacs D. Are healthcare professionals working in Australia’s immigration detention centres condoning torture? Journal of Medical Ethics 2016;42:413–5.

8. See note 6, Durham et al. 2016.

9. Two agencies, International Health and Medical Services (IHMS) and the Offshore Service for Survivors of Torture (OSSTT), provide mental health services for refugees and asylum seekers under contracts with the Australian government.

10. Submission by Human Rights Watch On the Situation in Australia To the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 61st Plenary Session May 2017; available at https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/supporting_resources/human_rights_watch_submission_on_australia_to_cescr_may_2017.pdf (last accessed 22 Aug 2017).

11. Triggs G. The forgotten children: national inquiry into children in immigration detention. 2014; available at https://www.humanrights.gov.au/our-work/asylum-seekers-and-refugees/publications/forgotten-children-national-inquiry-children (last accessed 23 Aug 2017).

12. See Australian Medical Association. Public health. 2017; available at https://ama.com.au/advocacy/public-health (last accessed 23 Aug 2017).

13. See Nine year old asylum seeker settles case with immigration department. May 3, 2017; available at https://www.piac.asn.au/2017/05/03/nine-year-old-asylum-seeker-settles-case-with-immigration-department/ (last accessed 23 Aug 2017).

14. See Soldani B. The facts about Indigenous youth detention in Australia. July 26, 2016; available at http://www.sbs.com.au/news/thefeed/article/2016/07/26/facts-about-indigenous-youth-detention-australia (last accessed 23 Aug 2017)

15. Anthony T. Why are so many Indigenous kids in detention in the NT in the first place? August 3, 2016; available at http://theconversation.com/why-are-so-many-indigenous-kids-in-detention-in-the-nt-in-the-first-place-63257 (last accessed 23 Aug 2017).

16. Vanovac N. NT youth detention royal commission doubles in duration with second extension granted. May 24, 2017; available at http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-05-24/nt-royal-commission-granted-second-extension-by-federal-govt/8554990 (last accessed 23 Aug 2017).

17. Hitch G. Aboriginal children in child protection a ’humanitarian crisis’, royal commission told. June 19, 2017; available at http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-19/royal-commission-children-in-protection-a-humanitarian-crisis/8630802; see also Marks L. Royal commission: NT youth detention system focuses on punitive measures, ’fails our young people.’ March 31, 2017; available at http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-31/royal-commission-into-youth-detention-releases-interim-report/8404422 (last accessed 23 Aug 2017).

18. Jamrozic, E, Handfield, T, Selgelid, MJ. Victims, vectors and villains: are those who opt out of vaccination morally responsible for the deaths of others? Journal of Medical Ethics 2016;42(12):762–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

19. Aubusson K. National guidelines oppose push to allow parents to choose sex of IVF babies. April 20, 2107; available at http://www.smh.com.au/national/health/national-guidelines-oppose-push-to-allow-parents-to-choose-sex-of-ivf-babies-20170420-gvoe6v.html (last accessed 23 Aug 2017).

20. Ethical guidelines on the use of assisted reproductive technology in clinical practice and research, at 72. 2017; available at https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/guidelines-publications/e79 (last accessed 23 Aug 2017).

21. Currie J. Australia ART guidelines oppose baby sex selection. April 24, 2017; available at http://www.bionews.org.uk/page_823669.asp (last accessed 22 Aug 2017).

22. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) for nonmedical sex selection is prohibited in the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, China, and India. The United States allows the practice, as do Italy, Mexico, and Thailand. In Australia in 2017, only four of the eight Australian states and territories had legislation regulating the clinical practice of ART, with sex selection for nonmedical purposes prohibited in two Australian states.

23. Although there are methods other than ART—such as the Shetlles or Whelan methods of timed intercourse—for sex selection, there is no consistent scientific evidence to indicate that such methods are effective. The two major approaches are in vitro fertilization with preimplantation genetic diagnosis (IVF with PGD), in which embryos created in the laboratory are analyzed for male or female chromosomes and implanted accordingly, and sperm sorting, in which separation of the X and Y sperm concentrates the sample to the desired gender.

24. Guilmoto CZ, Sex imbalances at birth. Current trends, consequences and policy implications, United Nations Population Fund. 2012; available at https://www.unfpa.org/sites/default/files/pub-pdf/Sex%20Imbalances%20at%20Birth.%20PDF%20UNFPA%20APRO%20publication%202012.pdf (last accessed 23 Aug 2017).

25. Preventing gender-biased sex selection. An interagency statement OHCHR (Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights), UNFPA, UNICEF, UN women and WHO. WHO. 2018; available at http://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/publications/gender_rights/9789241501460/en/ (last accessed 21 Jan 2018).

26. See note 20, Ethical guidelines on the use of assisted reproductive technology in clinical practice and research 2017, at 71.

27. See note 20, Ethical guidelines on the use of assisted reproductive technology in clinical practice and research 2017, at 128.

28. Savulescu J. Parent planning: we should be allowed to choose our children’s sex. September 17, 2015; available at http://www.ethics.org.au/on-ethics/blog/september-2015/parent-planning-%E2%80%93-we-should-be-allowed-to-choose-o (last accessed 23 Aug 2017).

29. Savulescu, J. Procreative beneficence: why we should select the best children. Bioethics 2001; 15(5–6):413–26.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

30. Bennet, R. The fallacy of the principle of procreative beneficence. Bioethics 2009;23:265–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

31. Herrisone-Kelly, P. The “parental love” objection to nonmedical sex selection: deepening the argument. Cambridge Quarterly of Heathcare Ethics 2007;16:446–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

32. Savulescu, J. Procreative beneficence, diversity, intersubjectivity, and imprecision. The American Journal of Bioethics 2015;15(6):16–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

33. Sparrow, R. Human enhancement for whom? In: Clarke, S, Savulescu, J, Coady, CAJ, Giubilini, A, Sanyal, S, eds.The Ethics of Human Enhancement: Understanding the Debate Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2016:27–142.Google Scholar

34. Herissone-Kelly, P. Procreative beneficence and the prospective parent. Journal of Medical Ethics 2006;32(3):166–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

35. DeGrazia, D. Creation Ethics: Reproduction, Genetics, and Quality of Life. New York: Oxford University Press; 2012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

36. Jonas H. The Imperative of Responsibility. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press; 1984, at 4, 5, 11.