The adoption of frozen embryos is an international practice that has proved challenging from a legal perspective. More and more couples and individuals are procreating through assisted reproductive technologies (ARTs) such as in vitro fertilization (IVF), which entails the creation and early development of a number of embryos outside the womb. Many of these couples end up with surplus IVF embryos after they consider their families complete, and donation of these surplus embryos by the IVF patients to other infertile couples is one among several embryo disposition options that the law permits. However, judges and legislators in many nations have found regulation of embryo donation to be anything but simple.
In this chapter, I aim to show that embryo adoption may be carried out whether embryos are treated (1) as constitutional persons who cannot be owned and who are entitled to the same legal protections as born children, or (2) as property which lacks legal rights of its own and can be disposed of according to the wishes of its owners. In short, under embryo-as-person treatment, IVF practice would be limited to creating only the number of embryos in a cycle that could and would safely be transferred to the maternal womb during that cycle. The constitutionally protected right to life would dictate that currently frozen embryos be either cryopreserved indefinitely or transferred to maternal wombs to continue their natural development which was artificially interrupted. In fact, Germany and Italy, both of which treat the embryo as a legal person, have already legislated to this effect. In embryo-as-person systems, frozen embryos would be adopted as any other child with some legal variations reflecting the different timing and technology involved. Abandoned frozen embryos might even fall under abandonment statutes, which provide that children whose genetic parents neglect to care for them come into the care of the state, and then the state places them in adoptive families.1 Courts would be involved every step of the way, from safeguarding embryos’ constitutional right to life to overseeing their placement with those who offer them gestation, a family and a home.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare National Perinatal Statistics Unit, ‘Assisted reproduction technology in Australia and New Zealand 2003,’ Assisted Reproductive Technology Series, at Table 9.
Australian Parliament (2002). ‘Research Involving Human Embryos Act: No.145’.
Brakman, S.V. (2007). ‘Paradigms, practices and politics: Ethics and the language of human embryo transfer/donation/rescue/adoption,’ in M.J. Cherry & A.S. Iltis (Eds.), Pluralistic Casuistry: Moral Arguments, Economic Realities, and Political Theory, Essays in Honor of Baruch A. Brody (191–210). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
California Health and Safety Code § 125320 (2003).
California Penal Code § 367 g (1996).
Cassidy, L. (Nov. 15, 2006). ‘Court says frozen embryos “not unborn”,’ The Irish Times.
Constitution of Ireland (1937). Article 40.3.3.
Crockin, S.L. (Dec. 4, 2005). ‘How do you “Adopt” a frozen embryo?,’ Boston Globe, Opinion.
de Lacey, S. (2005). ‘Parent identity and “virtual” children: Why patients discard rather than donate unused embryos,’ Human Reproduction, 20(6), 1661–1669 quoted in Brakman, S.V. (forthcoming). ‘Paradigms, practices and politics: Ethics and the language of human embryo transfer/donation/rescue/adoption,’ in M.J. Cherry & A.S. Iltis (Eds.), Pluralistic Casuistry: Moral Arguments, Economic Realities, and Political Theory, Essays in Honor of Baruch A. Brody. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Demartis, F. (1998). ‘Mass pre-embryo adoption,’ Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 7, 101–103.
Donor Conception Support Group (2007) Australian Legislation on Donor Conception [Online]. Available: http://www.members.optushome.com.au/dcsg/legislation/legislation.html.
Elster, N.R. (2007) All or Nothing? The International Debate over Disclosure to Donor Offspring [Online]. Available: http://www.thehumanfuture.org/commentaries/assisted_reproductive_ technology/art_commentary_elster01.html.
Fineschi, V., Neri, M. & Turillazzi, E. (2005) ‘The new Italian Law on assisted reproductive technology,’ Journal of Medical Ethics, 31, 536–539.
Food and Drug Administration (2005). ‘Human cells, tissues, and cellular and tissue-based products,’ Code of Federal Regulations, 21, Part 1271.
German Constitutional Court (1975). ‘Abortion Case I,’ Bundesverfassungsgerichtsentscheidung (BVerfGe), 39, 1.
German Constitutional Court (1993). ‘Abortion Case II,’ BVerfGe, 88, 203.
‘Adoption’ (2003). American Jurisprudence, Second Series, 2, § 82.
German Parliament (1990). ‘German Embryo Protection Act’.
German Penal Code § 218(a)(1).
Henig, R.M. (2004) On High-tech Reproduction, Italy Will Practice Abstinence [Online]. Available: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9C01EFDE173FF931 A35750C0A9629C8B63&fta=y.
Human Embryology and Fertilisation Authority (HFEA) (2007). Fact Sheet on Sperm, Egg & Embryo Donation [Online]. Available: http://www.hfea.gov.uk/cps/rde/xchg/SID-3F57D79B–A9284EC7/hfea/hs.xsl/1140.html.
Italian National Bioethics Committee (2000). ‘Protection of the Human Embryo and Fetus: The Italian National Bioethics Committee Statement Concerning the Preliminary Draft Protocol of the Bioethics Committee of the Council of Europe’.
Italian Parliament (2004). ‘Medically Assisted Reproduction Law: Law 40/2004’.
Kindregan, C. & McBrien, M. (2004). ‘Embryo donation: Unresolved legal issues in the transfer of surplus cryopreserved embryos,’ Villanova Law Review, 49, 169–206.
Kovacs, G.T., Breheny, S.A., & Dear, M.J. (2003). ‘Embryo donation at an Australian University in vitro fertilisation clinic: Issues and outcomes,’ Medical Journal of Australia, 178(3), 127–129.
Krentel, J.B. (1985). ‘ “Ownership” of the fertilized ovum in vitro: A hypothetical case in Louisiana,’ Louisiana Business Journal, 32, 284–288.
Lockhart Legislation Review Committee (Dec. 19, 2005). ‘Committee Report,’ § 17:14.
Louisiana Revised Statutes §§ 9:122–133 (1986).
Majumder, M.A. (Fall 2005). ‘Dialogue: The politics of embryo transfer,’ The Lahey Clinic Medical Ethics Journal, 12(3), 10–11.
Massachusetts Supreme Court (2000). ‘AZ v. BZ,’ Massachusetts Reports, 431, 151–162.
National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws (2002). ‘Uniform Parentage Act’.
National Conference of State Legislatures (2007) Gamete and Embryo Disposition [Online]. Available: http://www.ncsl.org/programs/health/embryodisposition.htm.
New Jersey Supreme Court (2000). ‘J.B. v. M.B’., Atlantic Reporter Second Ed., 751, 613–620.
New York Court of Appeals (1998). ‘Kass v. Kass,’ Northeastern Reporter, 696, 174–182.
Nightlight Christian Adoptions (2007) Snowflakes Embryo Adoptions Fact Sheet [Online]. Available: http://www.nightlight.org/Snowflakesfacts.pdf.
Robertson, J.A. (1990). ‘In the beginning: The legal status of early embryos,’ Virginia Law Review, 76, 437–517.
Robertson, J.A. (2004) ‘Protecting embryos and burdening women: Assisted reproduction in Italy,’ Human Reproduction, 19, 1693–96.
Rozenberg, J. & Womack, S. (Aug. 13, 2006) Don’t Stop Me Becoming a Mother [Online]. Available: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/03/08/nivf08.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/03/08/ixhome.html.
Telephone interview by author with Ron Stoddart, Director and Attorney, Snowflakes Embryo Adoptions (Mar. 20, 2003).
Tennessee Code § 36–1-102–48 (2001).
Tennessee Supreme Court (1992). ‘Davis v. Davis,’ Southwestern Reporter Second Ed., 842, 588–605.
Turone, F. (2004a). ‘Italy to pass new law on assisted reproduction,’ British Medical Journal, 328, 9.
Turone, F. (2004b). ‘New law forces Italian couple with genetic disease to implant all their IVF embryos,’ British Medical Journal, 328, 1334.
Turone, F. (2005). ‘Italians fail to overturn restrictive reproduction law,’ British Medical Journal, 330, 1405.
United Kingdom Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (1990). ‘Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act’.
US District Court for the Southern District of New York (1978). ‘Del Zio v. Columbia Presbyterian Hospital,’ No. 74 Civ. 3588.
US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (1989). ‘York v. Jones,’ Federal Supplement, 717, 421–429.
US Supreme Court (1965). ‘Griswold v. Connecticut,’ United States Reports, 381, 479–532.
US Supreme Court (1972). ‘Eisenstadt v. Baird,’ United States Reports, 405, 438–473.
US Supreme Court (1973). ‘Doe v. Bolton,’ United States Reports, 410, 179–201.
US Supreme Court (1973). ‘Roe v. Wade,’ United States Reports, 410, 113–179.
US Supreme Court (1992). ‘Planned Parenthood v. Casey,’ United States Reports, 505, 833–990.
Voss, A. S. (2002). ‘The right to privacy & assisted reproductive technologies: A comparative study of the law of Germany and the U.S,’ New York Law School Journal of International and Comparative Law, 21, 229–305.
ZENIT (2005) Future of Frozen Embryos [Online]. Available: http://www.yourcatholicvoice.org/insight.php?article=2790.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2007 Springer Science + Business Media B.V
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Cheely, E.C.C. (2007). Embryo Adoption and the Law. In: Brakman, SV., Weaver, D.F. (eds) The Ethics of Embryo Adoption and the Catholic Tradition. Philosophy and Medicine, vol 95. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6211-7_16
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6211-7_16
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-1-4020-6210-0
Online ISBN: 978-1-4020-6211-7
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)