The Victorian opposition is against convicted criminals receiving IVF treatment while serving time in prison, even if the treatment is self-funded. The opposition’s stance comes after convicted murderer Alicia Schiller was allowed to undergo IVF treatment while incarcerated at the Dame Phyllis Frost Centre. Schiller, serving a 16-year sentence for murder, would raise the child behind bars until the child turns five. The decision has sparked outrage, with many, including Tyrelle Evertsen-Mostert’s mother, Jo Evertsen-Mostert, calling it “ludicrous” and “disgusting.”
Liberal spokesman Brad Battin has been vocal in opposing this decision and has called for bipartisan support to block such situations in the future. He highlighted the community’s disapproval of Schiller receiving IVF treatment in prison, emphasizing that no child should be raised in a prison environment for the first five years of their life.
Despite the government stating that taxpayers would not cover the costs associated with Schiller’s IVF treatment, concerns remain about who will bear the expenses if the treatment is successful. Victorian Premier Jacinta Allan refrained from commenting on private health matters, citing a Supreme Court ruling that allows prisoners to access private health treatment.
Battin reiterated that even if the IVF treatment is privately funded, it is not appropriate to grant these rights to a murderer. He emphasized the importance of considering the child’s well-being and avoiding additional strain on the justice system. The issue has raised ethical questions, with Corrections Minister Enver Erdogan awaiting advice on how to distinguish Schiller’s case from a similar one in 2010.
Battin criticized the government for using the 2010 case as a justification for Schiller’s treatment, pointing out the vast difference in circumstances between the two cases. The debate continues as authorities grapple with ethical and legal considerations surrounding IVF treatment for inmates. Can you please rewrite this sentence?
Source link
