|
|
 |
Where am I now? Lawlink > Law Reform Commission > Publications > Chapter 4 - Public Opinion on AID
Discussion Paper 11 (1984) - Artificial Conception: Human Artificial Insemination
Chapter 4 - Public Opinion on AID
I. THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON HUMAN ARTIFICIAL INSEMINATION
A. General
4.1 In late 1983 the Advisory Committee on Human Artificial Insemination caused two surveys of public opinion to be made. They were implemented with the permission of the responsible Minister, the Hon. F.J. Walker, Q.C., M.P., Minister for Youth and Community Services, and with the approval of the Minister for Health the Hon. L.J. Brereton, M.P. The Ministers together made available the sum of $5,500 for the project. The studies were carried out for the Committee by Dr. Graeme Rawson of the School of Health Administration, University of New South Wales. Dr. Rawson’s specialty is epidemiology and health services research Dr. Rawson gave his services without financial reward while the University of New South Wales through the School of Health Administration made resource input into the investigations.
4.2 In spite of exhaustive writings on AID the amount of actual information on community opinions is small. Thus the investigations sought, as far as the limited budget would allow, to obtain overall population and special-interest group opinions. The population survey was applied to a national probability sample of 989 men and women. The second study was the detailed investigation through a comprehensive semi-structured questionnaire allowing for a degree of free response, of members of 40 community groups or “opinion leaders”. These groups included Christian churches, adoption organisations, professional bodies, women’s groups, homosexual groups, consumer groups and six pressure groups (sic) including the Right to Life Movement, Council for Civil Liberties, Festival of Light and the Humanist Society. They were deliberately selected in an endeavour to survey the full range of community opinions. Each group was approached with the request that the questionnaire be answered, not by the Organisation itself, but by as many individual members of the executive or board as possible, and also by any members who wished to answer. From the 40 groups who responded, a total of 279 separate responses were received.
4.3 Dr. Rawson presented the results of the studies in a draft report in June 1984. The report was accepted by the Committee and submitted to the Minister for Youth and Community Services on 13 July 1984.1 The Advisory Committee has made available to this Commission the contents of the surveys and Dr. Rawson’s report, for the purposes of the Commission’s reference. There has been no other attempt using such a method and on such a scale to obtain public opinion on Al in Australia. We accept that in view of the financial constraints on the project, it was not possible to meet optimum requirements for the conduct of surveys. Dr. Rawson draws attention to these matters in his report.
4.4 We set out in this Chapter some of the significant information provided by the report of the Advisory Committee. One purpose is to offer ready assistance on two or three fundamental questions about public opinion to persons who may wish to make submissions to us in response to Part II of this Paper.
B. Public Approval and Disapproval of AID
4.5 The national sample comprised 989 persons including 488 men and 501 women The approval rate of AID for helping married couples who cannot have children because of the husband’s infertility was 70 per cent while disapproval was 17 per cent. There was no significant variation in male and female responses. The report separately analyses approval and disapproval by age, marital status, education, state of Australia, country of birth and religion In the survey of Opinion Leaders (of the 279 respondents, 170 were women and 109 men), the overall approval rate was 60 per cent and disapproval 29 per cent. The highest disapproval rate in the classifications disclosed by the various tables analysing the national sample survey was 26 per cent by persons of 70 years of age and over, and also by persons of Asian birth and persons of both non-European and non-Australian birth, while the highest disapproval rate disclosed by the Opinion Leader Tables was 40 percent by persons of 70 years of age and over.
4.6 It may be of interest to mention approval of AID by reference to religious belief. The respondents in the national sample gave the following answers.
| | Anglican
% | Roman Catholic
% | Total Non-Conformist
% | No Religion
% |
| | | | | |
| Approved | 79 | 62 | 64 | 78 |
| Disapproved | 12 | 20 | 21 | 11 |
| Undecided | 9 | 17 | 15 | 12 |
| Number of persons | 305 | 246 | 263 | 137 |
Approval by Anglicans and those of no religious persuasion is higher than the national average. The difference between Anglican and Roman Catholic approval is highly significant (p0.001).
Although Catholic and non-conformist approval is lower than all other groups the level of approval is still high. The level of responses in the undecided category for these two groups indicates a degree of ambivalence.2
C. AID and Unmarried Women
4.7 The question whether AID should be available to unmarried women produced strong responses in both surveys. The respondents were asked to respond to the following questions:
- Should AID be made available to any unmarried women on request?
- Should AID be made available to an unmarried woman only if she is living with a man in a long-term relationship?
- Should AID not be made available at all to unmarried women?
“Unmarried” in this context meant “not legally married”. In the National Sample Survey, 62 percent of all persons were of the opinion that AID should not be made available to unmarried women. There was little difference between the attitudes of men (59 percent disapproval) and women (66 percent disapproval). As for positive approval, 15 percent approved of AID being available to all unmarried women and 16 per cent to such women only if living with a man in a long-term relationship. All of this is to be contrasted with the 70 per cent approval rate referred to in paragraph 4.5. The report contains detailed analysis and tabulation on this subject. The survey of Opinion Leaders disclosed an almost identical response to the national sampling. The overall percentage of disapproval of the availability of AID to unmarried women was 57 percent (men 60 percent, women 54 percent). Approval rates were 13 percent for AID being available to any unmarried women and 23 per cent to such women only if living with a man in a long-term relationship.3
4.8 Assuming, for the purposes of this paragraph that the information disclosed by the preceding two paragraphs is a fair reflection of the opinion of the New South Wales public, the surveys allow conclusions to be drawn that otherwise might not be available. The surveys suggest that the practice of AID as a means of conception when a husband is not fertile, is approved by a substantial majority of the community (almost three-quarters of the community over 14 years of age as suggested by the National Sample Survey, and by 60 per cent of the persons who responded to the Opinion Leader Survey). The surveys also indicate that 62 per cent and 57 per cent respectively of the community and the Opinion Leaders already described, expressly disapproved of the availability of AID to unmarried women. Only 15 per cent and 13 per cent respectively expressed approval On its face, the information offered by the surveys suggests that a majority of the New South Wales (and Australian) community approved of AID for married couples and at the same time a majority would deny its availability to women who are not legally married.
II. THE IMPORTANCE OF PUBLIC OPINION
4.9 We do not suggest that recommendations for new laws, or that laws generally, should be simply mirrors of public opinion. Public opinion may, however, be important in relation to law-making on artificial conception and on other subjects where medical and scientific developments are rapid and the desirability of a particular law is not self-evident. Community tolerance should not be exceeded or strained. On the other hand community opinion itself may not remain static in the face of continuous changes in science and technology.
4.10 Of the other subjects covered by the survey report of the Advisory Committee (1982), we will refer only to two. The first, which was dealt with by both surveys is the much debated question whether AID children should be given information about their biological or genetic origin. The second, which was asked only by the survey of Opinion Leaders, is the question whether AID procedures should be carried out by medical practitioners or under their supervision. The National Sample Survey showed an overall opinion of 47 per cent in favour of telling children that they were conceived by AID, with 38 per cent believing children should not be told, and 15 per cent undecided. Among the Opinion Leaders, 53 per cent (48 per cent men and 60 per cent women) favoured “telling the child”, 29 per cent were not in- favour and 18 per cent undecided.4
4.11 In relation to the performance of AID by medical practitioners, there was “remarkable consistency in responses”5 among Opinion Leaders whether or not they approved of AID or disapproved. Some 70 per cent of both groups (i.e. those who approved and those who disapproved) favoured doctors having exclusive control or supervision over the procedure. Those who approved of restriction of AID practice to the medical profession were then asked whether AID should be made available through hospital clinics, private medical practices, free- enterprise business ventures or community service (and voluntary) organisations. There was overwhelming support (91 per cent) for the use of hospital clinics, and overwhelming disapproval of business ventures (98 per cent) and community service organisations (83 per cent). There was also an expression of disapproval (5 3 percent) of private medical practices.6
Footnotes
1. Advisory Committee on Human Artificial Insemination, Human Artificial Insemination By Donor - Some Australian Perspectives (New South Wales 1983-84).
2. Id., p.16, table 2.7.
3. Id., ch.3 which contains results of questions asked of respondents as to whether AID should be available to unmarried women.
4. Id., pp.47. 50.
5. Id., p.59.
6. Id., p.60, table 5.2.
|
