Leesa Limir Case Memoir
1. The individual or group that had their rights infringed—who were they?
The first time Leesa Meldrum ever wanted a baby was when she was just eight years old. She was a young girl standing in an airport, watching a mother carrying her baby. 40 years of age at the time, Leesa Meldrum is a single woman who was denied IVF treatment because of her relationship status. Ms Meldrum was devastated at the fact that she was never going to be able to have her own child. Leesa’s doctor, John Mcbain was highly sympathetic towards Leesa and her inability to have a child. Leesa Meldrum had her rights infringed as she was denied IVF treatment because she was a single woman. The groups that had their rights infringed were single or lesbian women. Ms Meldrum’s …show more content…
right was infringed by the Victorian State law that was placed in 1995. The law stated that in S8 of the Infertility Treatment in order to receive treatment, a woman must be “married and living with her husband on a genuine domestic basis” or “living with a man in a de facto relationship”. Ms Meldrum felt discouraged and had lost all hope as her dream of “always wanting to become a mother” was shattered.
The case was taken to court by Dr John Mcbain as he was saddened with the fact that his patient Leesa Meldrum was not able to receive IVF treatment because of her relationship status. John Mcbain took the case to court in order to make amendments with the current law in order for Leesa’s rights to be respected.
Dr. Mcbain is a medical practitioner registered to practise in Victoria pursuant to the Medical Practice Act 1994 (Vic). He is a gynaecologist, specialising in reproductive technology and in vitro fertilisation (IVF techniques). He is licensed to perform fertilisation procedures pursuant to the State Act. In August 1999 he was consulted by respondent Ms Meldrum who wished to obtain IVF treatment. However, Ms Meldrum was unable to receive IVF treatment due to the Victorian Law. The applicant concluded that a treatment procedure ought to be provided to Ms Meldrum, but told her that, since she was single, the State Act prohibited the administration of the treatment.
The IVF treatment procedure would have involved the removal from Ms Meldrum of an ovum, the fertilisation of the ovum with donor sperm in vitro, and the transfer of the embryo into Ms Meldrum's womb.
The issue presented for John Mcbain is that the rights of single women were infringed as they are denied the right of IVF treatment because of their relationship status or sexual orientation.
Dr Mcbain and Leesa Meldrum had the contention that single women should be allowed access to IVF treatment whether or not they are married or single. However the Victorian state law had the opposing view of not allowing IVF to single women or those that are in a “de facto” relationship. The laws that existed at the time of the case were S8 of the infertility treatment act in Victoria and S22 of the Commonwealth sex discrimination act 1984. These laws impacted on Leesa Meldrum as she was unable to receive IVF due to the inconsistency of the Victorian and Commonwealth laws. John Mcbain took the case to court in order to justify the commonwealth law and allow it to be followed regarding S109 of the commonwealth of Australia constitution act 1990 which states that if there is any conflict between state and commonwealth laws in an area of concurrent power, commonwealth law must prevail. The state of Victoria had opposing views on this case as they believed that IVF may only be given to a woman who is married of ‘living in a de facto relationship’. Therefore lesbians, single and divorced women are excluded from
treatment.
8. What was the outcome of the case? Who was successful? What did the judges decide?
The Federal Court supported McBain’s argument that the Victorian marital status requirement was inconsistent with the Commonwealth provision and that, on the basis of S109 of the Constitution, the Commonwealth provision should prevail. Therefore, the discriminatory section of the Victorian law was invalid and rejected. The effect of this decision was that couples could not be denied IVF services on the basis of marital status and therefore single and lesbian patients should be allowed access to the services. Following the decision in this court case, the Victorian Infertility Treatment Authority decided that even though providers could not discriminate on marital status, they could only provide treatment to infertile women. The court’s decision Single women and women in lesbian relationships can have access to IVF treatment, but only if they cannot conceive a baby naturally. The Victorian Law Reform Commission has recommended that the requirement of infertility be removed. The Landmark case is now widely spread and has given much hope and optimism towards those that have always dreamt of having a child.
The first time Leesa Meldrum ever wanted a baby was when she was just eight years old. She was a young girl standing in an airport, watching a mother carrying her baby. 40 years of age at the time, Leesa Meldrum is a single woman who was denied IVF treatment because of her relationship status. Ms Meldrum was devastated at the fact that she was never going to be able to have her own child. Leesa’s doctor, John Mcbain was highly sympathetic towards Leesa and her inability to have a child. Leesa Meldrum had her rights infringed as she was denied IVF treatment because she was a single woman. The groups that had their rights infringed were single or lesbian women. Ms Meldrum’s …show more content…
right was infringed by the Victorian State law that was placed in 1995. The law stated that in S8 of the Infertility Treatment in order to receive treatment, a woman must be “married and living with her husband on a genuine domestic basis” or “living with a man in a de facto relationship”. Ms Meldrum felt discouraged and had lost all hope as her dream of “always wanting to become a mother” was shattered.
The case was taken to court by Dr John Mcbain as he was saddened with the fact that his patient Leesa Meldrum was not able to receive IVF treatment because of her relationship status. John Mcbain took the case to court in order to make amendments with the current law in order for Leesa’s rights to be respected.
Dr. Mcbain is a medical practitioner registered to practise in Victoria pursuant to the Medical Practice Act 1994 (Vic). He is a gynaecologist, specialising in reproductive technology and in vitro fertilisation (IVF techniques). He is licensed to perform fertilisation procedures pursuant to the State Act. In August 1999 he was consulted by respondent Ms Meldrum who wished to obtain IVF treatment. However, Ms Meldrum was unable to receive IVF treatment due to the Victorian Law. The applicant concluded that a treatment procedure ought to be provided to Ms Meldrum, but told her that, since she was single, the State Act prohibited the administration of the treatment.
The IVF treatment procedure would have involved the removal from Ms Meldrum of an ovum, the fertilisation of the ovum with donor sperm in vitro, and the transfer of the embryo into Ms Meldrum's womb.
The issue presented for John Mcbain is that the rights of single women were infringed as they are denied the right of IVF treatment because of their relationship status or sexual orientation.
Dr Mcbain and Leesa Meldrum had the contention that single women should be allowed access to IVF treatment whether or not they are married or single. However the Victorian state law had the opposing view of not allowing IVF to single women or those that are in a “de facto” relationship. The laws that existed at the time of the case were S8 of the infertility treatment act in Victoria and S22 of the Commonwealth sex discrimination act 1984. These laws impacted on Leesa Meldrum as she was unable to receive IVF due to the inconsistency of the Victorian and Commonwealth laws. John Mcbain took the case to court in order to justify the commonwealth law and allow it to be followed regarding S109 of the commonwealth of Australia constitution act 1990 which states that if there is any conflict between state and commonwealth laws in an area of concurrent power, commonwealth law must prevail. The state of Victoria had opposing views on this case as they believed that IVF may only be given to a woman who is married of ‘living in a de facto relationship’. Therefore lesbians, single and divorced women are excluded from
treatment.
8. What was the outcome of the case? Who was successful? What did the judges decide?
The Federal Court supported McBain’s argument that the Victorian marital status requirement was inconsistent with the Commonwealth provision and that, on the basis of S109 of the Constitution, the Commonwealth provision should prevail. Therefore, the discriminatory section of the Victorian law was invalid and rejected. The effect of this decision was that couples could not be denied IVF services on the basis of marital status and therefore single and lesbian patients should be allowed access to the services. Following the decision in this court case, the Victorian Infertility Treatment Authority decided that even though providers could not discriminate on marital status, they could only provide treatment to infertile women. The court’s decision Single women and women in lesbian relationships can have access to IVF treatment, but only if they cannot conceive a baby naturally. The Victorian Law Reform Commission has recommended that the requirement of infertility be removed. The Landmark case is now widely spread and has given much hope and optimism towards those that have always dreamt of having a child.