Skip to main content

Embryo Adoption and the Law

  • Chapter
  • 845 Accesses

Part of the book series: Philosophy and Medicine ((CSBE,volume 95))

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

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Australian Parliament (2002). ‘Research Involving Human Embryos Act: No.145’.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • California Health and Safety Code § 125320 (2003).

    Google Scholar 

  • California Penal Code § 367 g (1996).

    Google Scholar 

  • Cassidy, L. (Nov. 15, 2006). ‘Court says frozen embryos “not unborn”,’ The Irish Times.

    Google Scholar 

  • Constitution of Ireland (1937). Article 40.3.3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crockin, S.L. (Dec. 4, 2005). ‘How do you “Adopt” a frozen embryo?,’ Boston Globe, Opinion.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Demartis, F. (1998). ‘Mass pre-embryo adoption,’ Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 7, 101–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Food and Drug Administration (2005). ‘Human cells, tissues, and cellular and tissue-based products,’ Code of Federal Regulations, 21, Part 1271.

    Google Scholar 

  • German Constitutional Court (1975). ‘Abortion Case I,’ Bundesverfassungsgerichtsentscheidung (BVerfGe), 39, 1.

    Google Scholar 

  • German Constitutional Court (1993). ‘Abortion Case II,’ BVerfGe, 88, 203.

    Google Scholar 

  • ‘Adoption’ (2003). American Jurisprudence, Second Series, 2, § 82.

    Google Scholar 

  • German Parliament (1990). ‘German Embryo Protection Act’.

    Google Scholar 

  • German Penal Code § 218(a)(1).

    Google Scholar 

  • 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’.

    Google Scholar 

  • Italian Parliament (2004). ‘Medically Assisted Reproduction Law: Law 40/2004’.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kindregan, C. & McBrien, M. (2004). ‘Embryo donation: Unresolved legal issues in the transfer of surplus cryopreserved embryos,’ Villanova Law Review, 49, 169–206.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krentel, J.B. (1985). ‘ “Ownership” of the fertilized ovum in vitro: A hypothetical case in Louisiana,’ Louisiana Business Journal, 32, 284–288.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lockhart Legislation Review Committee (Dec. 19, 2005). ‘Committee Report,’ § 17:14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Louisiana Revised Statutes §§ 9:122–133 (1986).

    Google Scholar 

  • Majumder, M.A. (Fall 2005). ‘Dialogue: The politics of embryo transfer,’ The Lahey Clinic Medical Ethics Journal, 12(3), 10–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Massachusetts Supreme Court (2000). ‘AZ v. BZ,’ Massachusetts Reports, 431, 151–162.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws (2002). ‘Uniform Parentage Act’.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • New York Court of Appeals (1998). ‘Kass v. Kass,’ Northeastern Reporter, 696, 174–182.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robertson, J.A. (2004) ‘Protecting embryos and burdening women: Assisted reproduction in Italy,’ Human Reproduction, 19, 1693–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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).

    Google Scholar 

  • Tennessee Code § 36–1-102–48 (2001).

    Google Scholar 

  • Tennessee Supreme Court (1992). ‘Davis v. Davis,’ Southwestern Reporter Second Ed., 842, 588–605.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turone, F. (2004a). ‘Italy to pass new law on assisted reproduction,’ British Medical Journal, 328, 9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turone, F. (2004b). ‘New law forces Italian couple with genetic disease to implant all their IVF embryos,’ British Medical Journal, 328, 1334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turone, F. (2005). ‘Italians fail to overturn restrictive reproduction law,’ British Medical Journal, 330, 1405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • United Kingdom Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (1990). ‘Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act’.

    Google Scholar 

  • US District Court for the Southern District of New York (1978). ‘Del Zio v. Columbia Presbyterian Hospital,’ No. 74 Civ. 3588.

    Google Scholar 

  • US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (1989). ‘York v. Jones,’ Federal Supplement, 717, 421–429.

    Google Scholar 

  • US Supreme Court (1965). ‘Griswold v. Connecticut,’ United States Reports, 381, 479–532.

    Google Scholar 

  • US Supreme Court (1972). ‘Eisenstadt v. Baird,’ United States Reports, 405, 438–473.

    Google Scholar 

  • US Supreme Court (1973). ‘Doe v. Bolton,’ United States Reports, 410, 179–201.

    Google Scholar 

  • US Supreme Court (1973). ‘Roe v. Wade,’ United States Reports, 410, 113–179.

    Google Scholar 

  • US Supreme Court (1992). ‘Planned Parenthood v. Casey,’ United States Reports, 505, 833–990.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • ZENIT (2005) Future of Frozen Embryos [Online]. Available: http://www.yourcatholicvoice.org/insight.php?article=2790.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints 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)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics