SpringerLink
Log in

New Frontiers for Reproductive Health Rights: Contemporary Developments in the Regulation of Assisted Reproductive Technologies in South Africa

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Reproductive Health and Assisted Reproductive Technologies In Sub-Saharan Africa

Part of the book series: Sustainable Development Goals Series ((SDGS))

  • 73 Accesses

Abstract

South Africa has seen a boom of legislation and case law explicitly on medically assisted reproduction in the past decade. This area of law—also known as reproductive law—is a develo** area in South African law, and one in need of in-depth analysis. To this end, this chapter provides an overview of the emergent law relating to the use of assisted reproductive technologies (ARTs), covering core concepts, relevant legislation and case law. Reflecting on how reproductive health rights are enshrined in the Constitution of South Africa, reproductive law in South Africa is founded on the state’s commitment to reproductive health rights—which includes the use of ARTs. This is illustrated through analyses of three subject areas that have been (and continue to be) areas of legal developments and thus represent the frontier of reproductive health rights in South Africa: gamete donation, surrogacy and genetic testing. South Africa’s reproductive law takes a generally permissive stance on the use of ARTs, which represents a recognition and manifestation of reproductive health rights by the state. However, there are certain areas of South Africa’s reproductive law that are highly regulated and where the state has attempted to significantly restrict the use of ARTs. These areas represent cases where the court has endeavoured to strike a balance between reproductive health rights and countervailing state interests but has failed to strike that balance well.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free ship** worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    Human Tissue Act 65 of 1983.

  2. 2.

    Silke Dyer and others, ‘Assisted Reproductive Technology in Africa: A 5-Year Trend Analysis from the African Network and Registry for ART’ (2020) 41 Reproductive BioMedicine Online 604, 607.

  3. 3.

    Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 (Constitution of South Africa).

  4. 4.

    UN Population Fund, ‘Report of the International Conference on Population and Development’ (1994) 1995 UN Doc A/CONF.171/13/Rev.1 117.

  5. 5.

    See, John Dugard, ‘The Influence of International Human Rights Law on the South African Constitution’ (1996) 49 Current Legal Problems 305.

  6. 6.

    Bonginkosi Shozi, ‘Something Old, Something New: Applying Reproductive Rights to New Reproductive Technologies in South Africa’ (2020) 36 South African Journal on Human Rights 1, 5–6.

  7. 7.

    UN Population Fund, ‘Programme of Action’ adopted at the International Conference on Population and Development (1994).

  8. 8.

    See, African Union, ‘Protocol to the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa’ (2003).

  9. 9.

    Shozi, ‘Something Old, Something New: Applying Reproductive Rights to New Reproductive Technologies in South Africa’ (n 6), 3–4.

  10. 10.

    Christian Lawyers Association of South Africa v Minister of Health 1998 (4) SA 111 3 (T) (Christian Lawyers I); Christian Lawyers Association of South Africa v Minister of Health 2005 (1) SA 509 (T) (Christian Lawyers II). See below heading ‘9.3(a) A paradigm shift for reproductive healthcare policy: The Choice on Termination of Pregnancy Act’.

  11. 11.

    AB v Minister of Social Development 2017 (3) SA 570 (CC) (AB Constitutional Court judgment).

  12. 12.

    See, Donrich Thaldar, ‘Post-Truth Jurisprudence: The Case of AB v Minister of Social Development’ (2018) 34 South African Journal on Human Rights 231; Denise Meyerson, ‘Surrogacy, Geneticism and Equality: The Case of AB v Minister of Social Development’ (2019) 9 Constitutional Court Review 317; Catherine Albertyn, ‘Abortion, Reproductive Rights and the Possibilities of Reproductive Justice in South African Courts’ (2019) University of Oxford Human Rights Hub Journal 87.

  13. 13.

    AB v Minister of Social Development 2016 (2) SA 27 (GP) (AB High Court judgement); AB Constitutional Court judgement (n 11).

  14. 14.

    Children’s Act 38 of 2005, s 294 (Children’s Act).

  15. 15.

    AB Constitutional Court judgement (n 11) [315].

  16. 16.

    The text of section 11 of the Interim Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1993 is as follows: ‘(1) Every person shall have the right to freedom and security of the person, which shall include the right not to be detained without trial. (2) No person shall be subject to torture of any kind, whether physical, mental or emotional, nor shall any person be subject to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment’.

  17. 17.

    Ferreira v Levin; Vryenhoek v Powell 1996 (1) SA 984 (CC) [54].

  18. 18.

    This is evident from the text of section 11 of the Constitution, which does not feature the words ‘bodily’, ‘psychological’ or ‘integrity’.

  19. 19.

    AB Constitutional Court judgement (n 11) [77].

  20. 20.

    The potential distinction between s 12(1) and s 12(2) is one which the Constitutional Court acknowledged but declined to deal with in Law Society of South Africa v Minister for Transport 2011 (1) SA 400 (CC) [57]. The Constitutional Court accepted the decision by the court a quo not to apply s 12(2) and instead based its decision on 12(1)(c). The court a quo’s finding that 12(2), ‘does not apply, nor was it intended to apply, to victims of motor vehicle accidents in the context of the State being obliged to afford “an appropriate remedy” to such victims’.

  21. 21.

    Christian Lawyers II (n 10).

  22. 22.

    Ibid. [46].

  23. 23.

    Peter Hogg, Constitutional Law of Canada (3 edn, Carswell, 1992) [44.8].

  24. 24.

    AB Constitutional Court judgement (n 11) [314].

  25. 25.

    R v Morgentaler [1988] 1 SCR 30.

  26. 26.

    Ibid. [54]. Given that the Canadian Supreme Court explicitly rejects arguments made by the Crown that the scope of security of the person is limited to bodily integrity it hard to see how this case could be used as evidence to support the assertion that section 12(2) is primarily concerned with bodily integrity.

  27. 27.

    See, Blencoe v British Columbia (Human Rights Commission) [2000] 2 SCR 307 [60]–[61]; New Brunswick (Minister of Health and Community Services) v G(J) [1999] 3 SCR 46; B(R) v Children’s Aid Society of Metropolitan Toronto [1995] 1 SCR 315; Winnipeg Child and Family Services v KLW [2000] 2 SCR 519 [59].

  28. 28.

    New Brunswick (n 27).

  29. 29.

    Ibid. [58]–[61].

  30. 30.

    Surrogacy Advisory Group v Minister of Health 2023 (1) SA 241 (GP).

  31. 31.

    Ibid. [113].

  32. 32.

    Ibid. [157].

  33. 33.

    Ibid. [168] (a).

  34. 34.

    Ibid. [158], footnote 135.

  35. 35.

    Ibid. [168] (a).

  36. 36.

    Christof Heyns and Danie Brand, ‘Introduction to Socio-Economic Rights in the South African Constitution’ (1998) 2 Law, Democracy & Development 153, 155.

  37. 37.

    Annelize Nienaber, ‘The Grave’s a Fine and Private Place: A Preliminary Exploration of the Law Relating to Posthumous Sperm Retrieval for Procreation’ (2010) 25 Southern African Public Law 1, 8.

  38. 38.

    Government of the Republic of South Africa v Grootboom 2001 (1) SA 46 (CC).

  39. 39.

    AB High Court judgement (n 13) [137].

  40. 40.

    AB Constitutional Court judgement (n 11) [322].

  41. 41.

    Surrogacy Advisory Group (n 30) [68].

  42. 42.

    Ibid. [88].

  43. 43.

    Choice on Termination of Pregnancy Act 92 of 1996 (Choice Act).

  44. 44.

    Abortion and Sterilization Act 2 of 1975.

  45. 45.

    Ibid. s 3.

  46. 46.

    Marge Berer, ‘Abortion Law and Policy Around the World’ (2017) 19 Health and Human Rights 13, 14.

  47. 47.

    Choice Act (n 44), s 2(1)(a).

  48. 48.

    Ibid.

  49. 49.

    Ibid. s 2(1)(b).

  50. 50.

    Ibid. s 2(1)(c).

  51. 51.

    Christian Lawyers I (n 10).

  52. 52.

    Ibid. [1122B-F].

  53. 53.

    Ibid. [1441J]–[1442A].

  54. 54.

    Christian Lawyers II (n 10) [528D].

  55. 55.

    National Health Act 61 of 2003, s 1 (National Health Act).

  56. 56.

    Ibid. s 55(a).

  57. 57.

    Children’s Act (n 14), s 19(3), s 26(2)(b), s 40(3).

  58. 58.

    Ibid. s 40, s 41.

  59. 59.

    Ibid. s 296.

  60. 60.

    National Heath Act (n 55), s 68.

  61. 61.

    Regulations Relating to the Artificial Fertilisation of Persons GN R175, GG 35099 (2 March 2012) (2012 Regulations).

  62. 62.

    Ibid. reg 2.

  63. 63.

    Ibid. reg 3.

  64. 64.

    Ibid. reg 6, reg 7, reg 8.

  65. 65.

    Ibid. reg 9, reg 10, reg 11, reg 12.

  66. 66.

    [Draft] Regulations Relating to the Artificial Fertilisation of Persons GN 1165, GG 40312, 30 September 2016.

  67. 67.

    [Draft] Regulations Relating to Assisted Conception of Persons GN 251, GG 44321, 25 March 2021.

  68. 68.

    Donrich Thaldar and Bonginkosi Shozi, ‘South Africa’s Latest Medically Assisted Reproduction Draft Regulations: Close, but No Cigar’ [2022] Tydskrif vir die Suid-Afrikaanse Reg 1.

  69. 69.

    2012 Regulation (n 61), reg 10(2)(a).

  70. 70.

    Ibid. reg 14(1)(a)(iii).

  71. 71.

    Ibid. reg 11(c)(ii).

  72. 72.

    Dr. Rodrigues, Expert opinion (filed in AB High Court judgement (n 13) and AB Constitutional Court judgement (n 11)).

  73. 73.

    2012 Regulation (n 61), reg 18.

  74. 74.

    For a critique of the way in which the Regulations provide for ownership of reproductive material, see Donrich Thaldar, ‘The In Vitro Embryo and the Law: The Ownership Issue and a Response to Robinson’ [2020] Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal 1.

  75. 75.

    See below heading ‘9.6 Surrogate motherhood’.

  76. 76.

    Children’s Act (n 14), s 40(2).

  77. 77.

    Ibid. s 1: Definition of ‘artificial fertilisation’.

  78. 78.

    Ibid. s 40(3).

  79. 79.

    VJV v Minister of Social Development unreported case 27706/2021 ZAGPPHC (24 February 2022).

  80. 80.

    Children’s Act (n 14), s 26(2)(b).

  81. 81.

    Ibid. s 26(2)(b).

  82. 82.

    BR v LS 2018 (5) SA 308 (KZD).

  83. 83.

    QG v CS 2021 (7) ECL 54 (GP).

  84. 84.

    Ibid.

  85. 85.

    Children’s Act (n 14), s 41.

  86. 86.

    QG v CS (n 83).

  87. 87.

    Children’s Act (n 14), s 41.

  88. 88.

    Ibid. 7(1)(k).

  89. 89.

    See: Bonginkosi Shozi, Roasia Hazarilall and Donrich Thaldar, ‘Blood Is Thicker Than Water, but Is It Thicker Than Ink? An Analysis of Parenthood and Sperm Donor Agreements in the Wake of QG v CS’ (2022) 33 Stellenbosch Law Review 529. See also Professor Donrich Thaldar’s amicus curiae heads of argument (QG v CS 2021 (7) ECL 54 (GP)) https://thaldtian.files.wordpress.com/2021/07/heads-of-argument6-anon.pdf. Accessed 19 June 2022.

  90. 90.

    Donrich Thaldar and Bonginkosi Shozi, ‘Is Open-Identity Gamete Donation Lawful in South Africa?’ (2022) 112 South African Medical Journal 1.

  91. 91.

    2012 Regulation (n 61), reg 19.

  92. 92.

    Thaldar and Shozi ‘Is Open-Identity Gamete Donation Lawful in South Africa?’ (n 90).

  93. 93.

    Surrogacy Advisory Group (n 30).

  94. 94.

    Ibid. [199].

  95. 95.

    Regulations regarding the General Control of Human Bodies, Tissue, Blood, Blood Products and Gametes GN R180, GG 35099 (2 March 2012).

  96. 96.

    Ibid. reg 24(1)(c).

  97. 97.

    2012 Regulation (n 61), reg 3(1).

  98. 98.

    Ibid. reg 1.

  99. 99.

    Ibid. reg 9(1).

  100. 100.

    Ibid. reg 6.

  101. 101.

    Ibid. reg 7(e).

  102. 102.

    Ibid. reg 10(1)(c).

  103. 103.

    Ibid. reg 10(1)(b).

  104. 104.

    Ibid. reg 1.

  105. 105.

    See above heading ‘9.4(c) Ownership of reproductive material’.

  106. 106.

    See below heading ‘9.5(c) Known donors vs unknown donors’.

  107. 107.

    Thaldar and Shozi, ‘South Africa’s Latest Medically Assisted Reproduction Draft Regulations: Close, but No Cigar’ (n 68), 4.

  108. 108.

    2012 Regulations (n 61), reg 19.

  109. 109.

    Ibid. reg 14(1)(a)(iii), reg 11(c)(ii).

  110. 110.

    Children’s Act (n 14), s 41(2).

  111. 111.

    See above heading ‘9.4(a) A woman’s right to access MAR healthcare services’.

  112. 112.

    Regulations Regarding the General Control of Human Bodies, Tissue, Blood, Blood Products and Gametes (n 95), reg 24(1)(c). For a comprehensive discussion of this issue, see, Thaldar and Shozi, ‘Is open-identity gamete donation lawful in South Africa?’ (n 90).

  113. 113.

    This is what happened in the case of QG v CS (n 83).

  114. 114.

    2012 Regulations (n 61), reg 7(j)(i) (ii).

  115. 115.

    Thaldar and Shozi, ‘Is Open-Identity Gamete Donation Lawful in South Africa?’ (n 90), 4.

  116. 116.

    See 2012 Regulations (n 61), reg 3(c).

  117. 117.

    National Health Act (n 55), s 60(4)(a).

  118. 118.

    Ex Parte SN unreported case 2020/10242 ZAGHC (7 May 2020).

  119. 119.

    Bonginkosi Shozi, ‘Legal Issues in Posthumous Conception Using Gametes Removed from a Comatose Male: The Case of Ex Parte SN’ (2021) 14 South African Journal of Bioethics and Law 28, 29.

  120. 120.

    NC v Drs Aevitas Inc t/a Aevitas Fertility Clinic unreported case 23236/2017 ZAWCHC (23 January 2018).

  121. 121.

    Bonginkosi Shozi, ‘A Human Rights Analysis of Posthumous Reproduction’ (Master’s Dissertation, University of KwaZulu-Natal 2018) 44.

  122. 122.

    See, Donrich Thaldar, ‘Posthumous Conception: Recent Legal Developments in South Africa’ (2018) 108 South African Medical Journal 471.

  123. 123.

    Children’s Act (n 14), s 1(1).

  124. 124.

    Samantha Vanessa Lewis, ‘The Constitutional and Contractual Implications of the Application of Chapter 19 of the Children’s Act 38 of 2005’ (LLM dissertation, University of Western Cape 2011), 13. In fact, commissioning parents are often referred to as the ‘intended parents’, which is precisely what they are—those intending to parent the child born to the surrogate.

  125. 125.

    Ibid. Surrogate means ‘substitute’ or ‘stand-in’—an apt description as the surrogate is the woman who ‘stands in’ for another person who is unable to successfully carry a child.

  126. 126.

    Children’s Act (n 14), s 295(c)(iii).

  127. 127.

    Ibid. s 295(c)(viii).

  128. 128.

    Ibid. s 1(1): ‘an agreement between a surrogate mother and a commissioning parent in which it is agreed that the surrogate mother will be artificially fertilised for the purpose of bearing a child for the commissioning parent and in which the surrogate mother undertakes to hand over such a child to the commissioning parent upon its birth, or within a reasonable time thereafter, with the intention that the child concerned becomes the legitimate child of the commissioning parent’.

  129. 129.

    Ibid. s 295(a). Regarding the meaning of ‘permanently and irreversibly unable to give birth to a child’, see: Donrich W. Jordaan, ‘Legal Access to Surrogate Motherhood in Illness That Does Not Cause Infertility’ (2016) 106 South African Medical Journal 684.

  130. 130.

    Children’s Act (n 14), s 295(c)(iv), s 301.

  131. 131.

    Ibid. s 301(1), s 301(2).

  132. 132.

    Ex Parte KAF [2018] ZAGPJHC 529.

  133. 133.

    Children’s Act (n 14), s 301(3).

  134. 134.

    Donrich Thaldar, ‘Criteria for assessing the suitability of intended surrogate mothers in South Africa: Reflections on Ex Parte KAF II’ (2019) 12 South African Journal of Bioethics and Law 61.

  135. 135.

    Children’s Act (n 14), s 293.

  136. 136.

    Ibid. s 292.

  137. 137.

    Ibid. s 292(1)(a), s 292(1)(b).

  138. 138.

    Ibid. s 292(1)(c).

  139. 139.

    Ibid. s 292(1)(a).

  140. 140.

    Parliamentary Ad Hoc Committee, Report by the Parliamentary Ad Hoc Committee on the South African Law Commission Report on Surrogate Motherhood (Cape Town: PAHC, 1999), 8.

  141. 141.

    Ibid.

  142. 142.

    Children’s Act (n 14), s 297(1)(a).

  143. 143.

    Ibid. s 299 (b), s 299(c).

  144. 144.

    Ibid. s 299(a).

  145. 145.

    Ibid. s 299(a).

  146. 146.

    Ibid. s 294.

  147. 147.

    Ibid.

  148. 148.

    Ibid.

  149. 149.

    AB Constitutional Court judgement (n 11).

  150. 150.

    Shozi ‘Something Old, Something New: Applying Reproductive Rights to New Reproductive Technologies in South Africa’ (n 6); Donrich Thaldar, ‘The Constitution as an Instrument of Prejudice: A Critique of AB v Minister of Social Development’ (2019) 9 Constitutional Court Review 343; Donrich Thaldar, ‘Post-Truth Jurisprudence: The Case of AB v Minister of Social Development’ (n 12); Carmel Van Niekerk, ‘Section 294 of the Children’s Act: Do Roots Really Matter?’ (2015) 18 Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal/Potchefstroomse Elektroniese Regsblad 397; Meyerson (n 12), 294.

  151. 151.

    KB v Minister of Social Development [2023] ZAMPMBHC 12.

  152. 152.

    Children’s Act (n 14), s 295(e).

  153. 153.

    Ex Parte WH 2011 6 SA 514 (GNP) [63].

  154. 154.

    Ex Parte KAF (n 132) [14]. The court held that ‘not one of these embryos can be legally equated with the child that is to be born,’ and that ‘the embryos are merely the human biological material that may give rise to the child that is to be born’.

  155. 155.

    Constitution of South Africa (n 3).

  156. 156.

    S v M 2007 (2) SACR 539 (CC).

  157. 157.

    Ibid. [15].

  158. 158.

    Ex Parte WH (n 153) [61].

  159. 159.

    J Sloth-Nielsen, ‘Children’s Rights Jurisprudence in South Africa’ (2019) 52 De Jure 501,516.

  160. 160.

    S v M (n 156) [24].

  161. 161.

    Ibid. [26].

  162. 162.

    Sloth-Nielsen, ‘Children’s Rights Jurisprudence in South Africa’ (n 159), 517.

  163. 163.

    Ex Parte JCR [2022] ZAGPPHC 209 [36.1]–[36.2].

  164. 164.

    Ibid. [36.1]–[36.2].

  165. 165.

    Ibid. [35].

  166. 166.

    Holness and others, ‘A Parenting License, Granted by One’s Existing Children? Reflections on Ex Parte JCR’ (forthcoming in the Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal).

  167. 167.

    Ibid.

  168. 168.

    Ex parte Three Surrogacy Applications 2023 (1) SA 627 (GP).

  169. 169.

    Ex parte WH (n 153) [63].

  170. 170.

    Donrich Thaldar, ‘Criteria for Assessing The Suitability of Intended Surrogate Mothers in South Africa: Reflections on Ex Parte KAF II’ (n 132). See also: Donrich Thaldar, ‘The Need to Develop Objective Criteria for Suitability as a Surrogate Mother: Reflections on Ex Parte KAF’ (2018) 11 South African Journal of Bioethics and Law 35.

  171. 171.

    Dr. Rodrigues, Expert opinion (n 72) [14]–[16].

  172. 172.

    Ibid. [17].

  173. 173.

    2012 Regulation (n 61), reg 13. For a critical analysis of the ban on social sex selection, see: Donrich Thaldar, ‘Is It Time to Reconsider the Ban on Non-therapeutic Pre-implantation Sex Selection?’ (2019) 136 South African Law Journal 223.

  174. 174.

    Surrogacy Advisory Group (n 30).

  175. 175.

    Dr. Rodrigues, Expert opinion (n 72) [20].

  176. 176.

    Ibid. [21].

  177. 177.

    2012 Regulation (n 61), reg 13.

  178. 178.

    Surrogacy Advisory Group (n 30).

  179. 179.

    Heritable genome editing means making changes to—editing—the genetic material of eggs, sperm or early embryos, and establishing a pregnancy. These genetic changes will then be present in all the cells of the eventual individual, and will, like any other genetic trait, be inherited by the individual’s offspring.

  180. 180.

    Bonginkosi Shozi, ‘A Critical Review of the Ethical and Legal Issues in Human Germline Gene Editing: Considering Human Rights and a Call for an African Perspective’ (2020) 13 South African Journal of Bioethics and Law 62, 63. See also: Andrew McGee, ‘Using the Therapy and Enhancement Distinction in Law and Policy’ (2020) 34 Bioethics 70; Rasmus Bjerregaard Mikkelsen and others, ‘Genetic Protection Modifications: Moving Beyond the Binary Distinction Between Therapy and Enhancement for Human Genome Editing’ (2019) 2 CRISPR Journal 362.

  181. 181.

    Donrich Thaldar and others, ‘Human Germline Editing: Legal-Ethical Guidelines for South Africa’ (2020) 116 South African Journal of Science 1. See also: Donrich Thaldar, Bonginkosi Shozi and Tamanda Kamwendo, ‘Culture and Context: Why the Global Discourse on Heritable Genome Editing Should Be Broadened from the South African Perspective’ (2021) 4 BioLaw Journal 409; Bonginkosi Shozi and others, ‘The Future of Global Regulation of Human Genome Editing: A South African Perspective on the WHO Draft Governance Framework on Human Genome Editing’ (2022) 48 Journal of Medical Ethics 165; Donrich Thaldar and Bonginkosi Shozi, ‘An Imbalanced Approach to Governance? An Analysis of the WHO’s Position on Human Genome Editing’ (2023) Bioethics 1; Bonginkosi Shozi and Donrich Thaldar, ‘Promoting Equality in the Governance of Heritable Human Genome Editing Through Ubuntu: Reflecting on a South African Public Engagement Study’ (2023) 23 The American Journal of Bioethics 43.

  182. 182.

    Donrich Thaldar and Bonginkosi Shozi, ‘Procreative Non-maleficence: A South African Human Rights Perspective on Heritable Human Genome Editing’ (2020) 3 CRISPR Journal 32.

  183. 183.

    See above heading ‘9.4(a) The ‘recipient’; a woman’s right to access MAR healthcare services’.

  184. 184.

    See above heading ‘9.5(e) Extraordinary cases’.

  185. 185.

    See above heading ‘9.6(e) The genetic origins of the child’.

  186. 186.

    See above heading ‘9.7(b) Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT)’.

  187. 187.

    See above heading ‘9.7(c) From genetic testing to heritable genome editing?’.

  188. 188.

    Minister of Home Affairs v Fourie 2006 (1) SA 524 (CC) [102].

Table of Cases

South African Cases

  • AB v Minister of Social Development 2016 (2) SA 27 (GP).

    Google Scholar 

  • AB v Minister of Social Development 2017 (3) SA 570 (CC).

    Google Scholar 

  • BR v LS 2018 (5) SA 308 (KZD).

    Google Scholar 

  • Christian Lawyers Association of South Africa v Minister of Health 1998 (4) SA 111 3 (T).

    Google Scholar 

  • Christian Lawyers Association of South Africa v Minister of Health 2005 (1) SA 509 (T).

    Google Scholar 

  • Ex Parte JCR [2022] ZAGPPHC 209.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ex Parte KAF [2018] ZAGPJHC 529.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ex Parte SN unreported case 2020/10242 ZAGHC (7 May 2020).

    Google Scholar 

  • Ex parte Three Surrogacy Applications 2023 (1) SA 627 (GP).

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferreira v Levin 1996 (1) SA 984 (CC).

    Google Scholar 

  • Government of the Republic of South Africa v Grootboom 2001 (1) SA 46 (CC).

    Google Scholar 

  • KB v Minister of Social Development [2023] ZAMPMBHC 12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Law Society of South Africa v Minister for Transport 2011 (1) SA 400 (CC).

    Google Scholar 

  • Minister of Home Affairs v Fourie 2006 (1) SA 524 (CC).

    Google Scholar 

  • NC v Drs Aevitas Inc t/a Aevitas Fertility Clinic unreported case 23236/2017 ZAWCHC (23 January 2018).

    Google Scholar 

  • QG v CS 2021 (7) ECL 54 (GP).

    Google Scholar 

  • S v M 2007 (2) SACR 539 (CC).

    Google Scholar 

  • Surrogacy Advisory Group v Minister of Health 2023 (1) SA 241 (GP).

    Google Scholar 

  • VJV v Minister of Social Development unreported case 27706/2021 ZAGPPHC (24 February 2022).

    Google Scholar 

Canadian Cases

  • B(R) v Children's Aid Society of Metropolitan Toronto [1995] 1 SCR 315.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blencoe v British Columbia (Human Rights Commission) [2000] 2 SCR 307.

    Google Scholar 

  • New Brunswick (Minister of Health and Community Services) v G(J) [1999] 3 SCR 46.

    Google Scholar 

  • R v Morgentaler [1988] 1 SCR 30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winnipeg Child and Family Services v KLW [2000] 2 SCR 519.

    Google Scholar 

Table of Legislation

South African Statutory Instruments

  • [Draft] Regulations Relating to Assisted Conception of Persons GN 251, GG 44321, 25 March 2021.

    Google Scholar 

  • [Draft] Regulations Relating to the Artificial Fertilisation of Persons GN 1165, GG 40312, 30 September 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  • Regulations Regarding the General Control of Human Bodies, Tissue, Blood, Blood Products and Gametes GN R175, GG 35099 (2 March 2012).

    Google Scholar 

  • Regulations Relating to the Artificial Fertilisation of Persons GN R175, GG 35099 (2 March 2012).

    Google Scholar 

Bibliography

  • African Union, ‘Protocol to the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa’ (2003).

    Google Scholar 

  • Albertyn C, ‘Abortion, Reproductive Rights, and the Possibilities of Reproductive Justice in South African Courts’ (2019) University of Oxford Human Rights Hub Journal 87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berer M, ‘Abortion Law and Policy Around the World’ (2017) 19 Health and Human Rights 13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dugard J, ‘The Influence of International Human Rights Law on the South African Constitution’ (1996) 49 Current Legal Problems 305.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dyer S and others, ‘Assisted Reproductive Technology in Africa: A 5-Year Trend Analysis from the African Network and Registry for ART’ (2020) 41 Reproductive BioMedicine Online 604.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heyns C and D Brand, ‘Introduction to Socio-Economic Rights in the South African Constitution’ (1998) 2 Law, Democracy & Development 153.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hogg P, Constitutional Law of Canada (3 edn, Carswell, 1992).

    Google Scholar 

  • Holness and others, ‘A Parenting License, Granted by One’s Existing Children? Reflections on Ex Parte JCR’ (forthcoming in the Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal).

    Google Scholar 

  • Jordaan DW, ‘Legal Access to Surrogate Motherhood in Illness That Does Not Cause Infertility’ (2016) 106 South African Medical Journal 684.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis SV, ‘The Constitutional and Contractual Implications of the Application of Chapter 19 of the Children’s Act 38 of 2005’ (LLM dissertation, University of Western Cape 2011).

    Google Scholar 

  • McGee A, ‘Using the Therapy and Enhancement Distinction in Law and Policy’ (2020) 34 Bioethics 70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyerson D, ‘Surrogacy, Geneticism and Equality: The Case of AB v Minister of Social Development’ (2019) 9 Constitutional Court Review 317.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mikkelsen RB and others, ‘Genetic Protection Modifications: Moving Beyond the Binary Distinction Between Therapy and Enhancement for Human Genome Editing’ (2019) 2 CRISPR Journal 362.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nienaber A, ‘The Grave’s a Fine and Private Place: A Preliminary Exploration of the Law Relating to Posthumous Sperm Retrieval for Procreation’ (2010) 25 Southern African Public Law 1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parliamentary Ad Hoc Committee, Report by the Parliamentary Ad Hoc Committee on the South African Law Commission Report on Surrogate Motherhood (Cape Town: PAHC, 1999).

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodrigues Expert Opinion (AB v Minister of Social Development 2016 (2) SA 27 (GP) and AB v Minister of Social Development 2017 (3) SA 570 (CC)).

    Google Scholar 

  • Shozi B, ‘A Human Rights Analysis of Posthumous Reproduction’ (Master’s Dissertation, University of KwaZulu-Natal, 2018).

    Google Scholar 

  • ——— ‘Something Old, Something New: Applying Reproductive Rights to New Reproductive Technologies in South Africa’ (2020) 36 South African Journal on Human Rights 1.

    Google Scholar 

  • ——— ‘Legal Issues in Posthumous Conception Using Gametes Removed from a Comatose Male: The Case of Ex Parte SN’ (2021) 14 South African Journal of Bioethics and Law 28.

    Google Scholar 

  • ——— and others, ‘The Future of Global Regulation of Human Genome Editing: A South African perspective on the WHO Draft Governance Framework on Human Genome Editing’ (2022) 48 Journal of Medical Ethics 165.

    Google Scholar 

  • ——— Hazarilall R and D Thaldar, ‘Blood Is Thicker Than Water, but Is It Thicker Than Ink? An Analysis of Parenthood and Sperm Donor Agreements in the Wake of QG v CS’ (2022) 33 Stellenbosch Law Review 529.

    Google Scholar 

  • ——— and D Thaldar, ‘Promoting Equality in the Governance of Heritable Human Genome Editing Through Ubuntu: Reflecting on a South African Public Engagement Study’ (2023) 23 The American Journal of Bioethics 43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sloth-Nielsen J, ‘Children’s Rights Jurisprudence in South Africa’ (2019) 52 De Jure 501.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thaldar D, ‘Posthumous Conception: Recent Legal Developments in South Africa’ (2018) 108 South African Medical Journal 471.

    Google Scholar 

  • ——— ‘Post-Truth Jurisprudence: The Case of AB v Minister of Social Development’ (2018) 34 South African Journal on Human Rights 231.

    Google Scholar 

  • ——— ‘The Need to Develop Objective Criteria for Suitability as a Surrogate Mother: Reflections on Ex Parte KAF’ (2018) 11 South African Journal of Bioethics and Law 35.

    Google Scholar 

  • ——— ‘Criteria for Assessing the Suitability of Intended Surrogate Mothers in South Africa: Reflections on Ex Parte KAF II’ (2019) 12 South African Journal of Bioethics and Law 61.

    Google Scholar 

  • ——— ‘Is It Time to Reconsider the Ban on Non-therapeutic Pre-implantation Sex Selection?’ (2019) 136 South African Law Journal 223.

    Google Scholar 

  • ——— ‘The Constitution as an Instrument of Prejudice: A Critique of AB v Minister of Social Development’ (2019) 9 Constitutional Court Review 343.

    Google Scholar 

  • ——— and Shozi B, ‘Procreative Non-maleficence: A South African Human Rights Perspective on Heritable Human Genome Editing’ (2020) 3 CRISPR Journal 32.

    Google Scholar 

  • ——— and others, ‘Human Germline Editing: Legal-Ethical Guidelines for South Africa’ (2020) 116 South African Journal of Science 1.

    Google Scholar 

  • ——— ‘The In Vitro Embryo and the Law: The Ownership Issue and a Response to Robinson’ (2020) Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal 1.

    Google Scholar 

  • ——— Amicus curiae heads of argument (QG v CS 2021 (7) ECL 54 (GP)) https://thaldtian.files.wordpress.com/2021/07/heads-of-argument6-anon.pdf. Accessed 19 June 2022.

  • ——— Shozi B and T Kamwendo, ‘Culture and Context: Why the Global Discourse on Heritable Genome Editing Should Be Broadened from the South African Perspective’ (2021) 4 BioLaw Journal 409.

    Google Scholar 

  • ——— and Shozi B, ‘Is Open-Identity Gamete Donation Lawful in South Africa?’ (2022) 112 South African Medical Journal 1.

    Google Scholar 

  • ——— and Shozi B, ‘South Africa’s Latest Medically Assisted Reproduction Draft Regulations: Close, but No Cigar’ (2022) Tydskrif vir die Suid-Afrikaanse Reg 1.

    Google Scholar 

  • ——— and Shozi B, ‘An Imbalanced Approach to Governance? An Analysis of the WHO’s Position on Human Genome Editing’ (2023) Bioethics 1.

    Google Scholar 

  • UN Population Fund, ‘Programme of Action’ Adopted at the International Conference on Population and Development (1994).

    Google Scholar 

  • ——— ‘Report of the International Conference on Population and Development’ (1994) 1995 UN Doc A/CONF.171/13/Rev.1 117.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Niekerk C, ‘Section 294 of the Children’s Act: Do Roots Really Matter?’ (2015) 18 Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal/Potchefstroomse Elektroniese Regsblad 39.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, South Africa

    Bonginkosi Shozi, Aliki Edgcumbe & Donrich Thaldar

Authors
  1. Bonginkosi Shozi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Aliki Edgcumbe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Donrich Thaldar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Donrich Thaldar .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. School of Law, American University of Nigeria, Yola, Adamawa, Nigeria

    Olanike S. Adelakun

  2. School of Law, American University of Nigeria, Yola, Adamawa, Nigeria

    Erebi Ndoni

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Shozi, B., Edgcumbe, A., Thaldar, D. (2023). New Frontiers for Reproductive Health Rights: Contemporary Developments in the Regulation of Assisted Reproductive Technologies in South Africa. In: Adelakun, O.S., Ndoni, E. (eds) Reproductive Health and Assisted Reproductive Technologies In Sub-Saharan Africa. Sustainable Development Goals Series. Palgrave Macmillan, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-2411-0_9

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-2411-0_9

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-99-2410-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-99-2411-0

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation