ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT

Letters

Ditta Bartels' view that the Victorian government's Infertility (Medical Procedures) Act of 1984 is the correct model for regulating in vitro fertilization (IVF) (The Scientist, April 6, 1987, p. 11) is not an opinion that is necessarily widely shared. Even the Attorney General of Victoria who prepared the legislation told Time Australia (March 23rd, 1987) that embryo experimentation "raises the very fundamental question that some things are better left unsaid. I'm not saying that I espouse that

Alan Trounson
Ditta Bartels' view that the Victorian government's Infertility (Medical Procedures) Act of 1984 is the correct model for regulating in vitro fertilization (IVF) (The Scientist, April 6, 1987, p. 11) is not an opinion that is necessarily widely shared. Even the Attorney General of Victoria who prepared the legislation told Time Australia (March 23rd, 1987) that embryo experimentation "raises the very fundamental question that some things are better left unsaid. I'm not saying that I espouse that or I regret legislating for it, but it is a question that is on the line. People have to face up to it. I think it is a pity if government and parliament run away from it, but it may be a political reality."

The committee formed to evaluate and advise on matters relating to the Act, including any proposed research, has unanimously supported the proposed research referred to by...

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of

Receive full access to digital editions of The Scientist, as well as TS Digest, feature stories, more than 35 years of archives, and much more!
Already a member?
ADVERTISEMENT