Advertisement

The Legal Issue and of Assisted Reproductive Technologies

  • Diana Brock
Chapter
Part of the Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology book series (AEMB, volume 732)

Abstract

Generations ago families experiencing infertility were without options, other than adoption. Today, couples facing infertility have an array of choices regarding ways to build a family. Artificial reproductive technologies (ART) and other associated therapies are often able to help parents realize the dream of having a biological child or experiencing pregnancy (Moore, U St Thomas JL & Pub Pol’y 1:100, 2007). While these ART advancements have helped a great number of men and women, this technology also has its drawbacks. One problem we are faced with today due to ART is how to dispose of the cryopreserved embryos left over from in vitro fertilization (IVF) procedures.

Keywords

Supra Note Legal Status Adoptive Parent Infertile Couple Social Security Benefit 
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.

References

  1. 1.
    Baiman AM (2009) Cryopreserved embryos as America’s prospective adoptees: are couples truly “adopting” or merely transferring property rights? Wm & Mary J Women & L 16:133–205Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Falker EES, Elizabeth E (2009) The disposition of cryopreserved embryos: why embryo adoption is an inapposite model for application to third-party assisted reproduction. Wm Mitchell L Rev 35:489, 493Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Moral ChallengesGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Noonan AM (2007) The uncertainty of embryo disposition law: how alterations to roe could change everything. Suffolk UL Rev 40:485–1049Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    La. Stat. Ann. § 125Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    La. Stat. Ann. §§ 121-133Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    N.M. Stat. § 24-9A-3. 2008Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lambert JL (2008) Developing a legal framework for resolving disputes between “adoptive parents” of frozen embryos: a comparison to resolutions of divorce disputes between progenitors. BCL Rev 49:529–1431Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Davis v. Davis 1992, Supreme Court of TenneseeGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    York v. Jones. 1989Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Moore KA (2007) Embryo adoption: the legal and moral challenges. U St Thomas JL & Pub Pol’y 1:100Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jeter v. Mayo Clinic Arizona. 2005, Arizona Court of AppealsGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    A.Z. v. B.Z 2000, Supreme Court of MassachusettsGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kindregan CP Jr, McBrien M (2004) Embryo donation: unresolved legal issues in the transfer of surplus cryopreserved embryos. Villanova Law Rev 49:169PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kass v. Kass. 1998, New York State Court of AppealsGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Facts about Embryos. Available from: http://www.miracleswaiting.org/factsembryos.html.
  17. 17.
    J.B. v. M. B. 2000, Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate DivisionGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    672 N.W.2d at 782Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    In re Marriage of Witten, 672 N.W.2d 768, 788. 2003Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Burns v. Astrue. 2009, Utah District CourtGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Adams B (2010) Should boy born 3 years after dad’s death get social security? The Salt Lake City Tribune. http://www.atheistnexus.org/forum/topics/should-boy-born-3-years-after?xg_source=activity
  22. 22.
    760 N.E.2d 257 Mass 2002Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Hodges UniversityNaplesUSA

Personalised recommendations