Jump to content

Recommended Posts

The boy and his microscope: interpreting section 56(1) of the National Health Act

Donrich Willem Jordaan


Abstract


This article looks at the classic conflict between freedom and propriety with reference to the use of human gametes (sperm and egg cells) in the South African law. The core question that is addressed is whether it is legal to use one?s own gametes, or other?s with their consent, for non-medical, non-sexual-intercourse purposes. This question is answered divergently by the two possible interpretations of the relevant statutory law, section 56(1) of the National Health Act, which is formulated ambivalently. Since these two possible interpretations are representative of the two poles of the freedom-propriety conflict, this matter can be perceived as a test of the depth of South African law?s commitment to the principle of freedom. Section 56(1) is analysed using the applicable common law presumptions, as well as human rights. To illustrate the practical implications of these analyses, a hypothetical case study of a boy who studies sperm cells under his microscope at home is sketched and used throughout the article. The analyses conclude that the interpretation must be followed that answers the core question in the affirmative (in favour of freedom), namely that it is indeed legal to use one?s own gametes, or other?s with their consent, for non-medical, non-sexual-intercourse purposes.


Full Text: PDF


This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial Works License.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Me too Health matters know their stuff give great advice and Monica and the team are lovely. H&B have minimum wage staff who although they are nice enough I would never trust for advice or guidence. I would always support a long running indpendent local buisness rather than a chain.   It won't if you and others choose to support a small indpendent who have staff with superb product knowledge rather than a nationwide chain with regular 'salespeople'
    • I can't remember exactly when it was, but some years back a shop opened up virtually opposite Health Matters which was selling more or less the same kind of thing (what were they thinking?!) It didn't last long, I assume because most if not all people continued to use Health Matters. Hopefully Health Matters and H&B are sufficiently different that Health Matters won't be impacted too much. Also, I doubt that assistants in H&B will have the same kind of expert knowledge about what they are selling as the people in Health Matters do - and for some  kinds of products (eg vitamins, supplements, essential oils) it's important to be able to be sure that what you are being told is reliable.
    • I noticed that today, cryptic wording on the shuttering, but guessed that was who it is.  Seems sad that it will likely impact Health Matters
    • I will go to both Health Matters and H&B! I already buy a lot online from H&B in their sales,  - when they  have excellent bargains  for things like 3 for 2  large bags of nuts (which I freeze), and   so it's one high street store I'm pleased to see on Lordship Lane (apart from their weird array of sports stuff and "snacks" with sugar in). I can't say the same for Oliver Bonas, but then I doubt I am their target market 😂  
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...