Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Legal Implications and Regulation of in Vitro Fertilization

  • Chapter
Genetics and the Law II

  • 58 Accesses

Abstract

Recent events in England, which witnessed the birth of the world’s first “test tube” baby, or baby conceived by means of in vitro fertilization (IVF), have elevated the serious medical, ethical, and legal issues surrounding this biomedical advance into the public forum.1 Questions arise such as whether IVF is a nonhuman form of reproduction and is therefore immoral as a dehumanizing process; whether IVF is unethical and illegal experimentation with human beings; whether the state of science involved in IVF has not reached the point to warrant the participation of human beings; whether the potential danger of IVF children being born with physical abnormalities can be resolved; whether the law will create obstacles to the development of the process and/or to the individuals involved in it.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight 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

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References and Notes

  1. See,eg, All about that baby, Newsweek, p. 66, Aug. 7 (1978); The first test-tube baby, Time, p. 58, July 31 (1978). According to news reports, the baby girl, born by Caesarean section, is in normal health. See, generally, In vitro fertilization: Four commentaries, Hastings Cent. Rep. 8:7 (1978).

    Google Scholar 

  2. See, generally, Edwards, R. G., Bavister, B. D., and Steptoe, P. L., Early stages of fertilization in vitro of human oocytes matured in vivo, Nature 221:632 (1969); Shettles, L. B., Human blastocyst growth in vitro in ovulation cervical mucus, Nature 229:343 (1971); Steptoe, P. L., and Edwards, R. G., Laparoscopic recovery of preovulatory human oocytes after priming the ovaries with gonadotropins, Lancet 1: 683 (1970).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Kass, L., Making babies—The new biology and the “old” morality, Public Int. 26:18, 23 (1972); Soupart, P. J., and Morgenstern, L., Human sperm capacitation and in vitro fertilization, Fertil. Steril. 24: 462 (1973).

    Google Scholar 

  4. See Edwards, R., and Sharpe, D., Social values and research in human embryology, Nature 231:87 (1974); Reilly, P., In vitro fertilization—A legal perspective, in: Genetics and the Law (G. Annas and A. Milunsky), pp. 359, 364 (1975).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. See, eg, Kass, supra note 3, at 27; Kass, L., Babies by means of in vitro fertilization: Unethical experi¬ments on the unborn?, N. Engl. J. Med. 285: 1174 (1971).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Rorvik, D., The embryo sweepstakes, New York Times Magazine, pp. 17, 50, Sept. 15 (1974).

    Google Scholar 

  7. See Grad, F., Legislative responses to the new biology: Limits and possibilities, UCLA L. Rev. 15:480, 501 (1968); Hudock, G., Gene therapy and genetic engineering: Frankenstein is still a myth, but it should be reread periodically, Indiana L. J. 48: 533 (1973).

    Google Scholar 

  8. eg, Guttmacher, A., Artifical insemination, DePaulL. Rev. 18:566 (1969); McLaren, Biological aspects of AID, in: CIBA Foundation, Symposium in Legal and Other Aspects of Artificial Insemination by Donor- (A.I.D.) and Embryo Transfer (Vol. 3) (1972). See LvL, 1 All. E.R. 141 (1949) (English); Kinney, L., Legal issues of the new reproductive technologies, Calif. St. B. J., Nov./Dec.:514 (1977). See also Thies, W., A look to the future: Property rights and the posthumously conceived child, Trusts and Estates 110:922 (1971).

    Google Scholar 

  9. eg, Orford v. Orford, 49 Ont. L.R. 15, 58 D.L.R. 251 (1921). See Oakley, M. A., Test tube babies: Proposals for legal regulation of new methods of human conception and prenatal development, Fam. L. Q. 8:385, (1974); Smith, G., Through a test tube darkly: Artificial insemination and the law, Mich. L. Rev. 67:127, 135 (1968). See also Doornbos v. Doornbos, 23 U.S.L.W. 2308 (Super. Ct. Cook County, 111., Dec. 13, 1954), appeal dismissed on procedural grounds, 12 111. App. 2d 473, 139 N.E. 2d 844 (1956); Hoch v. Hoch No. 44-C-8307 (Cir. A. Cook County, 111., 1945); Time, p. 58, Feb. 26 (1945).

    Google Scholar 

  10. Hager, J., Artificial insemination: Some practical considerations for effective counseling, N.C. L. Rev. 39: 217, 232 (1961).

    Google Scholar 

  11. Plosowe, M., The place of law in medico-moral problems: A legal view II, N.Y.U. L. Rev. 31: 1238, 1242 (1956).

    Google Scholar 

  12. Hager, supra note 10, at 233.

    Google Scholar 

  13. 1958) Sess. Cas. 105, (1958) Scots L.T.R. 12. See People v. Sorenson, 66 Cal. Rptr. 7, 437 P.2d 495 (1968).

    Google Scholar 

  14. 1958) Sess. Cas. at 113.

    Google Scholar 

  15. eg, Gursky v. Gursky, 39 Misc.2d 1083, 242 N.Y.S.2d 406 ( Sup. Ct. 1963 ).

    Google Scholar 

  16. In re Adoption of Anonymous, 74 Misc.2d 99, 345 N.Y.S.2d 430 (Surrogate Ct. 1973); Strnad v. Strnad, 190 Mis. 786, 78 N.Y.S.2d 390 (Sup. Ct. 1948). See People ex rel. Abajian v. Dennett, 15 Misc. 2d 260, 134 N.Y.S.2d 178 (Sup. Ct. 1958). See also Levy v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 68(1968), rehearing denied 393 U.S. 898; Giona v. American Guarantee and Liability Ins. Co., 391 U.S. 73 (1968); Re Estate of Jensen, 162 N. W. 2d 861 (N.D. 1968); Storv. None, 57 Misc. 2d 342,291 N.Y.S. 2d 515 (1968); Green v. Woodard, 40 Ohio App. 2d 101, 69 0hioOps.2d 130., 318N.E.2d 397; C. Boardman, New York Family Law s. 116 (Biskind ed.).

    Google Scholar 

  17. Cai. Rptr. 7, 437 P. 2d 495 (1968).

    Google Scholar 

  18. Ibid, at 10, 437 P. 2d at 498.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Ibid, at 10, 437 P.2d at 498.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Ibid, at 13, 437 P. 2d at 501.

    Google Scholar 

  21. See, generally, Note, Artificial insemination: A legislative remedy, West St. U.L. Rev. 3: 48 (1975).

    Google Scholar 

  22. Ga. Code Ann. ss 74 - 101. 1 (1973).

    Google Scholar 

  23. Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 10, ss 551-53 (Supp. 1974). Kan. Stat. Ann. ss 23-128 to - 130 (1974). Ark. Stat. Ann. ss 61-141(c) (Supp. 1971). Md. Ann. Code art. 43, s 556E (Supp. 1974). N.C. Gen. Stat. S.49A-1 (Supp. 1974). N.Y. Dom. Rei. Law s73 (McKinney Supp. 1975). Cai. Civ. Code ss 195, 216 (West Supp. 1975 ). Cai. Penal Code s270 (West Supp. 1975).

    Google Scholar 

  24. Kass, supra note 3, at 28.

    Google Scholar 

  25. See, eg, Dietrich v. Inhabitants of Northampton, 138 Mass. 14(1884).

    Google Scholar 

  26. Prosser, W., Handbook of the Law of Torts (4th ed.), p. 336 (1971). See Bonbrest v. Katz, 65 F. Supp. 138 (D.D.C. 1946 ). See, generally, Wilson, Fetal experimentation: Legal implications of an ethical conun¬drum, Denver L. J. 53:581 (1976).

    Google Scholar 

  27. eg, Jorgensen v. Meade Johnson Laboratories Inc., 483 F.2d 237 (10th Cir. 1973); Renslow v. Mennonite Hospital, 67 111.2d 348, 367 N.W.2d 1250 (1977); Park v. Chessin, 88 Misc.2d 222, 387 N.Y.S.2d 204 (Sup. Ct. 1976), affd, 60 App. Div.2d 80, 400 N.Y.S. 2d 110 (1977).

    Google Scholar 

  28. Leccese v. McDonough, 361 Mass. 64, 68, 279 N.E.2d 339, 342 (1972); Keyes v. Construction ServInc., 340 Mass. 633, 165 N.E. 2d 912 (1960).

    Google Scholar 

  29. eg, Bonbrest v. Kotz, 65 F. Supp. 138 (D.D.C. 1946 ).

    Google Scholar 

  30. eg, Smith v. Brennan, 31 N.J. 353, 157 A.2d 497 (1960); Daley v. Meier, 33 111. App.2d 218, 178 N.E.2d 691 (1961); Torigian v. Watertown News Co., 352 Mass. 446, 225 N.E.2d 926 (1967); Kelly v. Gregory, 282 App. Div. 542, 125 N.Y.S. 2d 696 (1953).

    Google Scholar 

  31. Note, The “brave new baby” and the law: Fashioning remedies for the victims of in vitro fertilization, Am. J. L. Med. 4: 319 (1978).

    Google Scholar 

  32. eg, Williams v. State, 18 N.Y.2d 481, 223 N.E.2d 343 (1966); Zepeda v. Zepeda, 41 111. App.2d 240, 190 N.E.2d 849 (1963), cert, denied, 379 U.S. 945 (1964); Nell is v. Chicago Wesley Memorial Hospital, No. 701-15177 (Cir. Ct. Cook County, 111., June 18, 1974 ).

    Google Scholar 

  33. See Qustodio v. Bauer, 251 Cai. App.2d 303 (1967); Gleitman v. Cosgrove, 49 N.J. 22, 111 A.2d 689 (1967). See also Brodie, D., The new biology and the prenatal child, J. Fam. L. 9:391, 396(1970); Gordon, The unborn “wrongful life,” N.Y.U. L. Rev. 38:1078 (1963); Tedeschi, L., On tort liability for “wrongful life,” Israel L. Rev. 513 (1966); Note, Fetal research: A view from right to left to wrongful birth, Chi-Kent L. Rev. 52:133 (1975). For example, the Supreme Court of Alabama recently refused to find a cause of action for “wrongful life” in a suit brought by a deformed child born despite her father’s vasectomy. Elliott v. Brown, Dkt. No. 77-114 ( Ala., Aug. 18, 1978 ).

    Google Scholar 

  34. See Park v. Chessin, 60 App. Div.2d 80, 400 N.Y.S. 2d 110 (1977).

    Google Scholar 

  35. Jacobs v. Theimer, 519 S.W.2d 846 (Tex. 1975 ).

    Google Scholar 

  36. Ziemoa v. Sternberg, 45 A.D.2d 230, 357 N.Y.S.2d 265 (1974). Contra Rieck v. Medical Protective Co., 64 Wis. 2d 514, 219 N.W.2d 242 (1974).

    Google Scholar 

  37. Troppi v. Scarf, 31 Mich. App. 240, 187 N.W.2d 511 (1971). The case was subsequently settled.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Doerr v. Villate, 74 111. App.2d 332, 220 N.E.2d 767 (1966). See Robertson, J., Civil liability arising from “wrongful birth” following an unsuccessful sterilization operation, Am. J. L. Med. 4: 130 (1978).

    Google Scholar 

  39. See Note, Park v. Chessin: The continuing development of the theory of wrongful life, Am. J. L. Med. 4: 211 (1978).

    Google Scholar 

  40. Kass, supra note 3, at 32.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Abel, K., The legal implications of ectogenetic research, Tulsa L. J. 10: 243, 248 (1974).

    Google Scholar 

  42. Black’s Law Dictionary (rev. 4th ed.), p. 917 (1968).

    Google Scholar 

  43. Abel, supra note 41, at 252. See Gilpin v. Gilpin, 94 N.Y.S.2d 706 ( Dom. Rei. Ct. 1950 ).

    Google Scholar 

  44. See Annas, G., Glantz, L., and Katz, B., Informed Consent to Human Experimentation: The Subject’s Dilemma, p. 200, Ballinger, Cambridge (1977).

    Google Scholar 

  45. U.S. at 113.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Ibid. at 154.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Ibid. at 164.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  50. See, generally, Note, supra note 31.

    Google Scholar 

  51. See, generally, Annas, G., Glantz, L., and Katz, B., supra note 44.

    Google Scholar 

  52. See Wilson, supra note 26, at 637.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Ibid. at 638.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Prosser, W., Handbook of the Law of Torts (4th ed.), p. 237 (1971).

    Google Scholar 

  55. Norman v. Murphy, 124 Cal. App. 2d 95, 268 P.2d 178 (1954); Drabbels v. Skelly Oil Co., 155 Neb. 17, 50 N.W.2d 229 (1951); Grafv. Taggert, 43 N.J. 303, 204 A.2d 140 (1964); Carroll v. Skioff, 415 Pa. 47, 202 A.2d 9 (1964); Durrett v. Owens, 212 Tenn. 614, 371 S.W.2d 433 (1963).

    Google Scholar 

  56. eg, Simmons v. Howard University, 323 F. Supp. 529 (D.D.C. 1971); Chrisafogeorgis v. Brandenberg, 55 III. 2d 368, 304 N.W.2d 88 (1973); Britt v. Sears, 150 Ind. App. 487, 277 N.E.2d 20 (Ct. App. 1971); O’Neill v. Morse, 235 Mich. 130, 188 N.W.2d 785 (1971); Libbee v. Permanente Clinic, 1268 Ore. 258, 518 P. 2d 636 (1974); Baldwin v. Butcher, 184 S.E.2d 428 (W. Va. 1971). See Eich v. Town of Gulf Shores, 293 Ala. 95, 300 So.2d 354 (1974); Porter v. Lassiter, 91 Ga. App. 712, 87 S.E.2d 100 (1955).

    Google Scholar 

  57. See Prosser, W., Handbook of the Law of Torts (4th ed.), s 12, p. 56 (1971).

    Google Scholar 

  58. Ibid, at 59.

    Google Scholar 

  59. The first test tube baby, Time, pp. 58, 61, July 31 (1978).

    Google Scholar 

  60. Rorvik, supra note 6, at 55.

    Google Scholar 

  61. The first test tube baby, supra note 59.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Woman awarded $50,000 in suit on test-tube baby, Boston Globe, p. 2, Aug. 19 (1978).

    Google Scholar 

  64. Reilly, supra note 4, at 364.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Ibid, at 368.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Fed. Reg. 31, 748 (1973).

    Google Scholar 

  67. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Ibid, at 31, 743.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Fed. Reg. 30, 648 (1974). See Martin, M., Ethical standards for fetal experimentation, Fordham L. Rev. 43: 547 (1975).

    Google Scholar 

  71. Fed. Reg. 33, 526 (1975) (Codified in 45 C.F.R. s 46). See Markey, K., Federal regulation of fetal research: Toward a public policy founded on ethical reasoning, U. Miami L. Rev. 31: 675, 685 (1977).

    Google Scholar 

  72. Fed. Reg. 30, 650 (1974).

    Google Scholar 

  73. Ibid. See, generally, Capron, A., The law relating to experimentation with the fetus, in: Research on the Fetus, 13-1, The National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Be¬havioral Research, Appendix, DHEW Pub. No. (05) 76 - 128 (1975).

    Google Scholar 

  74. Fed. Reg. 33, 529 (1975).

    Google Scholar 

  75. See Note, supra note 31.

    Google Scholar 

  76. See Annas, G., Glantz, L., and Katz, B., supra note 44, at 206.

    Google Scholar 

  77. See Annas, G., Glantz, L., and Katz, B., supra note 44, at 50.

    Google Scholar 

  78. See eg, Dandridge v. Williams, 397 U.S. 471 (1970); Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969).

    Google Scholar 

  79. Note, Governmental control of research in positive eugenics, J. L. Ref. 7: 615, 620 (1974).

    Google Scholar 

  80. eg, Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944); Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905).

    Google Scholar 

    Google Scholar 

  81. Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967).

    Google Scholar 

  82. Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965).

    Google Scholar 

  83. Skinnerv. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535 (1941).

    Google Scholar 

  84. See, eg, Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438, 452-55(1972). See also Smith, G., Manipulating the genetic code: Jurisprudential conundrums, Georgetown L. J. 64: 697, 750 (1976).

    Google Scholar 

  85. Skinnerv. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1941).

    Google Scholar 

  86. U.S. 479, 495 (1965).

    Google Scholar 

  87. U.S. 438 (1972).

    Google Scholar 

  88. U.S. 113 (1973).

    Google Scholar 

  89. See Note, supra note 31; Green, H., Genetic technology: Law and policy for the brave new world, Indiana L.J. 48:559, 565 (1973). See, generally, Wilson, J., Fetal experimentation: Rights of the father and questions of personhood, Villanova L. Rev. 22:403 (1976-77).

    Google Scholar 

  90. See Kass, supra note 3, at 32.

    Google Scholar 

  91. See Golding, M., and Golding, N., Ethical and value issues in population limitation and distribution in the United States, Wand. L. Rev. 24: 495, 512 (1971).

    Google Scholar 

  92. U.S. 200 (1927).

    Google Scholar 

  93. Ibid, at 207.

    Google Scholar 

  94. See Pate, R., and Plant, P., Sterilization of mental defectives, Cumberland-Sanford L. Rev. 3: 458 (1972).

    Google Scholar 

  95. eg, In re Moore, 221 S.E.2d 307 (N.C. 1976).

    Google Scholar 

  96. See Vukowich, W., The dawning of the brave new world—Legal, ethical and social issues of eugenics, U. III. L.F. 1971: 189, 208 (1971).

    Google Scholar 

  97. Ethics Advisory Board, Report and Conclusions: HEW Support of Research Involving Human In Vitro Fertilization and Embryo Transfer, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (May 4, 1979 ).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Office of General Counsel, Massachusetts Department of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, 02111, USA

    Barbara F. Katz

Authors
  1. Barbara F. Katz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, 02115, USA

    Aubrey Milunsky MB.B. Ch., M.R.C.P., D.C.H. (Assistant Professor of Pediatrics Director Medical Geneticist) (Assistant Professor of Pediatrics Director Medical Geneticist)

  2. Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, 02114, USA

    Aubrey Milunsky MB.B. Ch., M.R.C.P., D.C.H. (Assistant Professor of Pediatrics Director Medical Geneticist) (Assistant Professor of Pediatrics Director Medical Geneticist)

  3. Eunice Kennedy Shriver Center, Walthalm, Massachusetts, 02154, USA

    Aubrey Milunsky MB.B. Ch., M.R.C.P., D.C.H. (Assistant Professor of Pediatrics Director Medical Geneticist) (Assistant Professor of Pediatrics Director Medical Geneticist)

  4. School of Law, Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts, USA

    George J. Annas J.D., M.P.H. (Associate Professor of Law and Medicine) (Associate Professor of Law and Medicine)

  5. School of Medicine, Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts, 02118, USA

    George J. Annas J.D., M.P.H. (Associate Professor of Law and Medicine) (Associate Professor of Law and Medicine)

  6. School of Public Health, Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts, 02118, USA

    George J. Annas J.D., M.P.H. (Associate Professor of Law and Medicine) (Associate Professor of Law and Medicine)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1980 Plenum Press, New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Katz, B.F. (1980). Legal Implications and Regulation of in Vitro Fertilization. In: Milunsky, A., Annas, G.J. (eds) Genetics and the Law II. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4613-3078-3_30

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4613-3078-3_30

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4613-3080-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4613-3078-3

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation