Advertisement

Legal Issues Raised by In Vitro Fertilization and Embryo Transfer

  • Lori B. Andrews

Abstract

The successful clinical application of in vitro fertilization has given rise to a brave new legal field. As more actors have become involved in the drama of reproduction, various legal precedents have been consulted to sort out the rights and responsibilities of the doctors, gamete donors, and couples participating in the process, as well as the rights of the children created by this technique. Alternatives to in vitro fertilization (such as in vivo fertilization with embryo transfer) and research applications of in vitro fertilization raise additional legal issues.

Keywords

Embryo Transfer Legal Issue Artificial Insemination Infertile Couple Unborn Child 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438, 453 (1972).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535 (1942).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965); Carey v. Population Serv. Int’l., 431 U.S. 678 (1977).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Maher v. Roe, 432 U.S. 464 (1977).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    The National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, Report and Recommendations: Research on the Fetus. 1975 DHEW Publication No. (OS) 76–127.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    45 C.F.R. 46 201 et. seq. (1982).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    45 C.F.R. 46 203 (c) (1982).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann.§36–2302 (Supp. 1982–83); Cal. Health & Safety Code § 25956 (West Supp. 1983); Ill. Ann. Stat. ch. 38 § 81–26,-32,-32.1 (Smith-Hurd Supp. 1983–84); Ind. Code § 35–1–58.5–6 (1979); Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. §436.026 (1975); La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §14:87.2 (West 1974); Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 22 §1593 (West 1980); Mass. Ann. Laws ch. 112§12J (Supp. 1983); Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. §§ 333.2685 —.2692 (West 1980); Minn. Stat. Ann. § 145.421-.422 (West Supp. 1982); Mo. Ann. Stat. §188.037 (Vernon Supp. 1983); Mont. Code Ann. § 50–20-108(3) (1981); Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28–342, 28–346 (1979); N.M. Stat. Ann. § 24–9 A-et seq. (1981); N.D. Cent. Code §14–02.2–01 to -02 (Allen Smith 1981); Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2919.14 (Baldwin 1982); Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 63 §1–735 (West Supp. 1982–83); Pa. Stat. Ann. tit. 18 § 3216 (Purdon Supp. 1983–83); R.I. Gen. Laws § 11–54-2 (Supp. 1982); S.D. Comp. Laws Ann. § 34–23A-17 (1977); Tenn. Code Ann. § 39–308 (Supp. 1982); Utah Code Ann. § 76–7–310 (Allen Smith 1978); Wyo. Stat. 35–6–115 (1977);Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 36–2302 (Supp. 1982–83); Cal. Health & Safety Code § 25956 (West Supp. 1982); Ill. Ann. Stat. ch. 38 §81–22 (8), (9) (Smith-Hurd Supp. 1983–84); La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 14:87.2 (West 1974); Mass. Ann. Laws chap. 112 §12j (a) IV, § 12K (Supp. 1982); Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 333.2685 (West 1980); Minn. Stat. Ann. § 145.421 (subd. 2) (West Supp. 1982); Mo. Ann. Stat. § 188.015 (5) (Vernon Supp. 1983); N.M. Stat. Ann. § 24–9A-1 G. (1981); N.D. Cent. Code § 14–02.2–02(3) (Allen Smith 1981); Ohio Rev. Code Ann. 2919.14 (Baldwin 1982); Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 63 § 1–730(2) (West Supp. 1982–83); Pa. Stat. Ann. §3203 (Supp. 1982); R.I. Gen. Laws §ll-54–2(f) (Supp. 1982); Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. §311.720 (5) (1983);Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ind. Code §35–1–58.5–6 (1979); Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 22 §1593 (West 1980); Mont. Code Ann. §50–20-108 (1981); Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28–342, 28–346 (1979); S.D. Comp. Laws Ann. § 34–23A-17 (1977; Tenn. Code Ann. § 39–4–208 (1982); Utah Code Ann. §76–7–310 (Allen Smith 1978); Wyo. Stat. 35–6–115 (1977).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann §36–2302 (Supp. 1982–83); Cal. Health & Safety Code §25956 (West Supp. 1983); Ill. Ann. Stat. ch. 38 § 81–26, -32, -32.1 (Smith-Hurd Supp. 1983–84); Ind. Code § 35–1–58.5–6 (1979); Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. §436.026 (1975); Neb. Rev. Stat. §28–342, 28–346 (1979); Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §2919.14 (Baldwin 1982); Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 63 §1–735 (West Supp. 1982–83); Pa. Stat. Ann. tit. 18 §3216 (Supp. 1983–84); Tenn. Code Ann. § 39–308 (Supp. 1982); Wyo. Stat. §35–6–115 (1977);Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    See, e.g., N.M. Stat. Ann 24–9A-1H (1981).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. §§333.2685 (1) (West 1980).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Minn. Stat. Ann. § 145.421–422 (West 1983).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    R. I. Gen. Laws § ll-54-l(a) (Supp. 1982).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    J.E. Buster, M. Bustillo, I.H. Thornycroft, J.A. Simon, S.P. Boyers, J.R. Marshall, J.A. Louw, R.W. Seed, R.G. Seed, 1983, Non-surgical transfer of in vivo fertilized donated ova to five infertile women: Report of two pregnancies, Lancet, 2:223.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §14–87.2 (West 1974).Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 36–2302 (Supp. 1982–83); Ind. Code § 35–1–58.5–6 (1979); Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 436–026 (1975); Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 22 §1593 (West 1980); Mass. Ann. Laws ch. 112 § 12j (Supp. 1982); Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. §§ 333.2685-.2692 (West 1980); Minn. Stat. Ann. § 145–421-.422 (West Supp. 1982); Mo. Ann. Stat. § 188.037 (Vernon Supp. 1983); Mont. Code Ann. §50–20-108(3) (1981); Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28–342, 28–246 (1979); N.D. Cnet. Code §14–02.2–01 to 02 (Allen Smith 1981); Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §2919.14 (Baldwin 1982); Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 63 §1–735 (West Supp. 1983–84); Pa. Stat. Ann. tit. 18 §3216 (Purdon Supp. 1983–84); R. I. Gen. Laws § 11–54-2 (Supp. 1982); Utah Code Ann. §76–7–310 (Allen Smith 1978); Wyo. Stat. 35–6–115 (1977).Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    In Massachusetts, for example, pregnancy is “the condition of a mother carrying an unborn child” and an unborn child is “the individual human life in existence and developing from fertilization until birth.” Abortion is “the knowing destruction of the life of an unborn child or the intentional expulsion or removal of an unborn child from the womb other than for the principal purpose of producing a live birth or removing a dead fetus.” Mass. Ann. Laws ch. 12 § 12K (Supp. 1982).Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 63 §1–730 (1), (2), (7) (West Supp. 1982–83).Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wyo. Stat. 35 6–101 (a)(i)(vi) (1977).Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Minn. Stat. Ann. § 145.422 (subd. 3) (West Supp. 1982); Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §2919.14 (A) (Baldwin 1982).Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. §436.026 (1975); Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 22 § 1593 (West 1980); Mass. Ann. Laws chap. 112 § 12j (a) iv. (Supp. 1982); Mich. Comp. Laws. Ann. § 333.2690 (West 1980); Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28–342 (1979); N.D. Cent. Code § 14–02.2–02(3) (Allen Smith 1981); R.I. Gen. Laws § 11–54-2 (F) Supp. 1982); Wyo. Stat. §35–6–115 (1975).Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    The Minnesota statute makes it a gross misdemeanor for anyone to permit the use of a living human conceptus for any type of research. Minn. Stat. Ann. § 145.422 (Subd. 1) (West Supp. 1982).Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Pa. Stat. Ann. tit. 18 § 3213(e) (Supp. 1983–4).Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ill. Ann. Stat. ch. 38 § 81–26(6)(7) (Smith-Hurd Supp. 1983–84).Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    McLaughlin, 1983, “Hub Hospitals Plan Test-Tube Fertilizations,” Boston Globe, p 1, March 2,Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Smith v. Fahner, No. 82 c4324 (D.Ct., 111.).Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Reilly, P., 1976, In Vitro Fertilization—A Legal Perspective, in “Genetics and Law”, A. Milunsky and G. J. Annas, eds., Plenum Press, New York and London.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    45 C.F.R. § 46.204(d) (1982).Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Report of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists Ethics Committee on In Vitro Fertilisation and Embryo Replacement or Transfer, 1983, Chameleon Press, London.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Lorio, K.V., 1982, In vitro fertilization and embryo transfer: Fertile areas for litigation, Southwestern Law Journal, 35:973. Similarly, Mark E. Cohen urged HEW to establish standards for federally funded in vitro fertilization research which could “define minimum qualifications for IVF experimenters, standardize the laboratory conditions that must be employed, develop safety standards necessary for conducting human IVF experimentation, and establish the circumstances in which an IVF conceptus may be destroyed.”PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 33a.
    Cohen, M.E., 1978, The ‘Brave new baby’ and the law: Fashioning remedies for the victims of in vitro fertilization, American Journal of Law and Medicine, 4:319.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 34.
    42. U.S.C. § 2891–3 (1982).Google Scholar
  36. 35.
    45 C.F.R. § 46.101 et. seq. (1982).Google Scholar
  37. 36.
    See, e.g. N.Y. Pub. H. Law §§2440–2446 (McKinney 1977).Google Scholar
  38. 37.
    This is the definition used in the federal regulations. 45 C.F.R. 46.102(e) (1982).Google Scholar
  39. 38.
    45 C.F.R. § 46.111 (a) (1982).Google Scholar
  40. 39.
    45 C.F.R. § 46.205(a)(2) (1982).Google Scholar
  41. 40.
    45 C.F.R. § 46.111(a)(2) (1982).Google Scholar
  42. 41.
    Smedes v. Wayne State University (D.Ct., Mich.).Google Scholar
  43. 42.
    Trounson, A., Leeton, J. Besanko, M., Wood, C, Conti, A., 1983, Pregnancy established in an infertile patient after transfer of a donated embryo fertilised in vitro, Brit Med J. 286:835.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 43.
    45 C.F.R. 5 46.116 (1982).Google Scholar
  45. 44.
    Comment, “Lawmaking and Science: A Practical Look at In Vitro Fertilization and Embryo Transfer,” Detroit College of Law Review, III:429–456, (1979).Google Scholar
  46. 45.
    As recently as 1977, a court rejected an action based on a lack of informed consent to pregnancy in a situation where physicians failed to warn of the risk of having a child with Down’s Syndrome. The court distinguished the traditional informed consent cases since they dealt with situations where the injury “arose from some affirmative violation of the patient’s physical integrity.” Karlson v. Guerinot, 57 App. Div. 2d 73, 82, 394 N.Y.S. 2d 933,939 (1977). See also the similar logic in Smith v. United States, 392 F. Supp. 654 (N.D. Ohio 1975), a case involving maternal rubella, in which the court found that the physician’s failure to warn of the risks had not proximately caused the child’s injury, since there was nothing the physician could have done to have caused the child to have been born healthy.Google Scholar
  47. 46.
    Becker v. Schwartz, 46 N.Y. 2d 401, 413 N.Y.S. 2d 8951, 386 N.E. 2d 807 (1978).Google Scholar
  48. 47.
    Berman v. Allan, 80 N.J. 421, 404 A. 2d 8 (1979).Google Scholar
  49. 48.
    Gildner v. Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, 451 F. Supp. 692 (E.D. Pa. 1978).Google Scholar
  50. 49.
    Reilly, supra. n. 30, citing U.S. Department of Health Education and Welfare, “What are the Facts About Genetic Disease,” DHEW Publication (NIH) 74–370 (1974) pp. 27–28; Sister M. Newmann, ed., The Tricentennial People; Human Applications of the New Genetics 7–8 (1978).Google Scholar
  51. 50.
    Speck v. Finegold, 408 A. 2d 496, 508 (Pa. Super. 1979). The denial of the wrongful life cause of action was upheld in Speck v. Finegold, 439 A. 2d 110 (1981).Google Scholar
  52. 51.
    Curlender v. Bio-Science Laboratories, 165 Cal. Rptr. 477, 106 Cal. App. 3d 811 (1980).Google Scholar
  53. 52.
    Titmuss, R., 1971, “The Gift Relationship: From Human Blood to Social Policy,” Panteon, New York, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  54. 53.
    “Reproductive Council Guidelines,” American Association of Tissue Banks Newsletter, 4:37 (November 1980); American Fertility Society, Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Artificial Insemination.Google Scholar
  55. 54.
    For information on how to assess surrogates, see Andrews, L.B., 1984, New Conceptions, St. Martin’s Press, New York, New York.Google Scholar
  56. 55.
    Minn. Stat. Ann. § 145.424; (West suppl, 1983); S.D. Cod. Laws § 21–55–1 (1981 Supp.);Utah Code Ann. §§ 78–11-23 to 25 (1983).Google Scholar
  57. 56.
    Del Zio v. Presbyterian Hospital, 74 Civ 3588 (S.D.N.Y. 1976). See also Sweeney, W. J., III, and Goldsmith, L.S., 1980, Test Tube Babies: Medical and Legal Considerations, J. of Leg. Med. 2:1.Google Scholar
  58. 57.
    “In Britain and Australia, New In Vitro Guidelines” 13(2) Hastings Center Report (February 1983).Google Scholar
  59. 58.
    Flannery, D.M., Weisman, C. D., Lipsett, C.R., Braverman, A.N., 1979, Test tube babies: Legal issues raised by in vitro fertilization, Georgetown Law Journal, 67:1295.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 59.
    Ethics Advisory Board of the U.S. Dept. of Health, Education, and Welfare, 1979, “Report and Conclusions: DHEW Support of Research Involving In Vitro Fertilization and Embryo Transfer,” Federal Register 44:35034.Google Scholar
  61. 60.
    Alaska Stat. §25.20.045 (Supp. 1982); Ark. Stat. Ann. §61–141 (1971); Cal. Civ. Code § 7005 (West Supp. 1983); Colo. Rev. Stat. §19–6–106 (1978); Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 45–69f to -69n (1981); Fla. Stat. Ann. § 742.11 (West Supp. 1983); Ga. Code Ann. §§74–101.1, -9904 (1982); Kan. Stat. Ann. §§ 23–128 to -130 (1981); La. Civ. Code Ann. art. 188 (West Supp. 1983); Md. Est. & Trusts Code Ann. § 1–206(b) (1974); and Md. Ann. Code art. 20 §212 and art. 43, § 556E (1980); Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 333.2824 (1980) and § 700.111 (1980); Minn. Stat. Ann. § 257–56; Mont. Rev. Code Ann. § 40–6–106 (1981); Nev. Rev. Stat §126–061 (1979); N. Y. Dom. Rel. Law §73 (McKinney 1977); N. C. Gen. Stat. §49A-1 (1976); Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 10 §§ 551–553 (West Supp. 1982–1983); Or. Rev. Stat. §§109.239,.243,.247, 677.355,.360,.365,.370 (1981); Tenn. Code Ann. §53–446 (Supp. 1981); Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 12.03 (Vernon 1975); Va. Code 64/1–7.1 (1980); Wash. Rev. Code Ann. § 26.26.050 (West Supp. 1983–1984); Wis. Stat. Ann. §767.47(9) (West 1981), § 891.40 (West Supp. 1982–1983); Wyo. Stat. § 14–2–103 (1978).Google Scholar
  62. 61.
    Despite the absence of a “maternity” law, the genetic mother in some states may be able to assert a claim to the child. In California, for example, “Any interested party may bring an action to determine the existence or nonexistence of mother-child relationship.” Cal. Civil Code § 7015 (1983).Google Scholar
  63. 62.
    Andrews, L. B., 1981, Removing the stigma of surrogate motherhood, Family Advocate, 4:21.Google Scholar
  64. 63.
    Cal. Penal Code § 181 (West Supp. 1983).Google Scholar
  65. 64.
    Ala. Code § 26–10-89 (1975); Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 8–126 (c) (1974); Cal. Penal Code § 273 (a) (West Supp. 1983); Colo. Rev. Stat. § 19–4–115 (1978); Del. Code Ann. tit. 13 §928 (1981); Fla. Stat. Ann. § 63–212 (1) (b) (West Supp. 1983); Ga. Code Ann. § 74–418 (b) (Supp. 1982); Idaho Code §18–1511 (1979); Ill. Ann. Stat. ch. 40 §§1526, 1701, 1702 (Smith-Hurd 1980); Iowa Code Ann. § 600.9 (West 1981); Ky. Rev. Stat. § 199.590 (2) (1982); Md. Ann. Code art. 16 §83 (Supp. 1982); Mass. Ann. Laws ch. 210 § 11A (1981); Mich Comp. Laws Ann. § 710.54 (Supp. 1982–83); Nev. Rev. Stat. § 127–290 (1981); N.J. Stat. Ann. § 9.3–54 (West Supp. 1982–83); N.Y. Soc. Serv. Law § 374(b) (McKinney Supp. 1982–83); N.C. Gen. Stat. §48–37 (Supp. 1981); Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 10 §60.12 (g) (West Supp. 1982–83); S.D. Codified Laws Ann. § 25–6–4.2 (Supp. 1982); Tenn. Code Ann. § 36–136 (Supp. 1982); Utah Code Ann. § 76–7–203 (1978);Wis. Stat. Ann. § 946.716 (1982).Google Scholar
  66. 65.
    Nev. Rev. Stat. § 127.240(1) (1979).Google Scholar
  67. 66.
    “Surrogate Motherhood Contracts Declared Illegal by Kentucky A.G.,” Farn. L. Rep. (BNA) 7:2246 (1981).Google Scholar
  68. 67.
    Doe v. Kelley, No. 7–8-815–531 (Cir. Ct., Wayne County, Mich., January 28, 1980), reported at 6 Fam. L. Rep. (BNA) 3011, aff’d. 106 Mich. App. 169 (1981), cert. denied, U.S. Supreme Court.Google Scholar
  69. 68.
    Scott, R. 1978, “The Body as Property,” Viking Press, New York, New York.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1984

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lori B. Andrews

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations