The Technology, Law, and Ethics of in Vitro Fertilization, Gamete Donation, and Surrogate Motherhood

Notes

1. US Congress OTA: Infertility: Medical and Social Choices. OTA BA-358, 1988 (8.5%); Frankel MS: Artificial insemination and semen cryobanking: Health and safety concerns. Legal-Med Q 3:93, 1979 (15%)

   • Google Scholar

2. For more detail on these techniques, see US Congress OTA, op. cit. note 1; Blank RH: Human genetic and reproductive intervention. In Regulating Reproduction. New York, Columbia University Press, p 23; Andrews L: New conceptions: A Consumer’s Guide to the Newest in Fertility Treatments Including Artificial Insemination and Surrogate Mothering. New York, St. Martin’s Press, 1981 (Rev. ed 1985)

   • Google Scholar
3. • Weedn V.W.
   Reproductive patients.
   American College of Legal Medicine, Legal Medicine: Legal Dynamics of Medical Encounters. CV Mosby, St. Louis1990: 260
   • Google Scholar
4. • For a review of these justifications, see Schoeman F
   Rights of children, rights of parents, and the moral basis of the family.
   Ethics. 1980; 91: 6
   • Crossref
   • Google Scholar

5. See, e.g., LaFollette H: Licensing parents. Philosophy & Public Affairs 9:182,1980; Frisch LE: On licentious licensing: A reply to Hugh LaFollette. Philosophy & Public Affairs 11:173,1982; Kymlicka W: Rethinking the family. Philosophy & Public Affairs 20:77,1991

   • Google Scholar

6. See, e.g., C.M. v. C.C., 152 NJ Supp. 160, 377 A.2d 821 (1977)

   • Google Scholar
7. • See Olsen FE
   The myth of state intervention in the family.
   J Law Reform. 1985; 18: 4
   • Google Scholar

8. 109 N.J. 396, 537 A.2d 1227 (1988)

   • Google Scholar

9. US Congress OTA, op. cit. note 1, p 282. The law governing parental obligations and rights is state, not federal law, and much of the state law in this area is “common law” or “case law,” not codified in statutes, but made, cited, and relied upon in judicial decisions.

   • Google Scholar

10. See US Congress OTA, op. cit. note 1, p 281

    • Google Scholar
11. • See Clark H.H.
    The illegitimate child.
    The Law of Domestic Relations. St. Paul, MN, West Publishing Co1968: 155
    • Google Scholar
12. • See Comment
    The unwed father’s right in adoption proceedings: A case study and legislative critique.
    Albany Law Rev. 1976; 40: 543
    • Google Scholar

13. No. 63-31-90 (Orange Cty. Superior Ct. Calif. October 22, 1990)

    • Google Scholar
14. See Ethics Committee of the American Fertility Society: Ethical considerations in the new reproductive technologies.
    Fertil Steril. 1990; 53 (suppl): 12s
    • Google Scholar

15. Found in 10 Oklahoma Statutes Supp. 1989, Section 554. (Sec. 8), described in Hass GG: Oklahoma statute on donor oocytes [letter]. Fertil Steril 54:852, 1991

    • Google Scholar

16. US Congress OTA, op. cit. note 1, p 243 (Table 13-1)

    • Google Scholar

17. See Weedn VW, op. cit. note 3, p 261

    • Google Scholar

18. 152 NJ Supp. 160, 377 A.2d 821 (1977)

    • Google Scholar

19. No. 88SA 289 (Colo. June 22, 1989)

    • Google Scholar

20. 179 Cal. App. 3d 386, 224 Cal. Rptr. 530 (1986)

    • Google Scholar

21. 129 Misc. 2d 550, 493 N.Y.S. 2d 404 (1985)

    • Google Scholar

22. 155 A.D.2d 11, 552 N.Y.S. 2d 321 (1990)

    • Google Scholar
23. • Wikler D.
    • Wikler N.J.
    Turkey-baster babies: The demedicalization of artificial insemination.
    Milbank Q. 1991; 69: 1
    • Scopus (30)
    • Crossref
    • Google Scholar
24. • This trend is projected and endorsed in Note
    Looking for a family resemblance: The limits of the functional approach to the legal definition of family.
    Harvard Law Rev. 1991; 104: 1640
    • Crossref
    • Google Scholar

25. Goldstein J, Freud A, Solnit A: Beyond the Best Interests of the Child. New York, Free Press, 1973; see also Bronfenbrenner U: A Report on Longitudinal Evaluation of Preschool Programs, vol 2. Is Early Intervention Effective? Washington, DC, D.H.E.W. Publication No (OHD), 1975, pp 72-75

    • Google Scholar

26. See notes 38-43 infra

    • Google Scholar

27. Victor Weedn has noted that the practice of surrogacy may literally conflict with state laws that divest a semen donor of his parental rights and confer those rights on the birth mother, Weedn VW, op. cit. note 3

    • Google Scholar

28. See Haas [letter], op. cit. note 13

    • Google Scholar

29. 109 NJ 396, 537 A2.d 1227 (1988)

    • Google Scholar

30. No. 63-31-90 (Orange Cty. Superior Ct. Calif. October 22, 1990)

    • Google Scholar

31. John Robertson, quoted in Kolata G: When grandmother is the mother, until birth. New York Times CXL 48(683): All, col. 1, August 5, 1991; Kolder et al: Obstetrical interventions. N Engl J Med 316:1192, 1987

    • Google Scholar

32. No. 63-31-90 (Orange Cty. Superior Ct. Calif. October 22, 1990)

    • Google Scholar

33. Andrews L: Between Strangers. New York, Harper & Row, 1989, pp 217-219. The experts consulted by the OTA differed on how the separation of genetic, gestational, and social functions would affect the welfare of children and parents. US Congress OTA, op. cit. note 1, p 209

    • Google Scholar

34. Quoted in Kolata G, op. cit. note 31

    • Google Scholar

35. Paraphrased in Kolata G, ibid

    • Google Scholar

36. A similar concern is discussed in Macklin R: Artificial means of reproduction and our understanding of the family. Hastings Center Report: 6, January-February 1991

    • Google Scholar

37. For two influential discussions of these issues, see Corea G: The Mother Machine. New York, Harper & Row, 1985; Field M: Surrogate Motherhood: The Legal and Human Issues, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, 1988

    • Google Scholar

38. Doe v. Kelly, 106 Mich. App. 169, 307 N.W. 2d 438 (1981)

    • Google Scholar

39. Surrogate Parenting Associates, Inc. v. Commonwealth Ex Rel. Armstrong, 704 S.W. 2d 209 (1986)

    • Google Scholar

40. 109 NJ 396, 537 A.2d 1227 (1988)

    • Google Scholar

41. Arizona (1989 Ariz. Sess. Laws 14); Florida (Fla. Stat. Sec. 63.212(1) (1988); Indiana (Individuals. Code Sec. 31-8-2-1 to 31-8-2-3) (1988); Kentucky (Ky. Rev. Stat. Sec. 199.590 (1988); Louisiana (La. Rev. Stat. Ann. Sec. 9:2713) (1987); Michigan (Mich. Comp. Laws, Sec. 722.851-722.863) (1988); Nebraska (Ne. Rev. Stat. 674) (1988); Nevada (Nv. Rev. Stat. 127.303.5) (1987); North Dakota (1989 N.D. Sess. Laws 184); Utah (1989 Utah Laws 140); Washington (1989 Wash. Laws 404)

    • Google Scholar
42. • Rothenberg K.H.
    • op. cit., note 36; See
    Gestational surrogacy and the health care provider: Put part of the IVF genie back into the bottle.
    Law, Med Health Care. 1990; 18: 4
    • Google Scholar

43. Arkansas Statute Sec. 9-10-201; New Hampshire, HB-1426-FN, Chapter 87 (1990); see Rothenberg KH, op. cit. note 42

    • Google Scholar

44. See Rothenberg KH op. cit. note 40, p 351, n 10

    • Google Scholar

45. Smith v. Jones, CF 025 653 (Los Angeles Superior Ct. Calif. 1987); Smith & v. Jones & Jones, 85-532014 DZ (Detroit MI, 3d District 9 Mar. 15,1986); see US Congress OTA, op. cit. note 1, pp 284, 290

    • Google Scholar

46. No. 63-31-90 (Orange Cty. Superior Ct. Calif. October 22, 1990)

    • Google Scholar
47. • See Katz-Rothman B.
    Recreating Motherhood: Ideology and Technology in a Patriarchal Society. WW Norton, New York1989
    • Google Scholar
48. • E.g.Robertson J.
    Embryos, families and procreative liberty: The legal structure of the new reproduction.
    South Calif Law Rev. 1986; 59: 939
    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar

49. E.g., Corea, G., op. cit. note 36

    • Google Scholar
50. • Hill J.L.
    • E.g., Andrews L. op. cit. note 33
    In defense of enforcement of the surrogate contract: A reply to Field.
    Politics Life Sei. 1991; 9: 253
    • Scopus (0)
    • PubMed
    • Crossref
    • Google Scholar
51. • E.g.Anderson E.
    Is woman’s labor a commodity?.
    Philosophy Public Affairs. 1990; 19: 75
    • Google Scholar
52. • See Raymond J.
    The international traffic in women: Women used in systems of surrogacy and reproduction.
    in: Hynes H.P. Reconstructing Babylon: Essays on women and technology. Indiana University Press, Bloomington, IN1991
    • Google Scholar

53. See, e.g., Corea G: How the new reproductive technologies will affect all women. In Hynes HP op. cit. note 52

    • Google Scholar

54. Barbara Katz-Rothman argues that the technology for monitoring and assisting pregnancy —fluoroscopes, sonograms, amniocentesis, CVS, and fetal micro-surgery—has greatly reduced the intimacy and privacy of the maternal-fetal relationship, by making the fetus accessible to the outside world. This, in turn, has encouraged health-care professionals to treat the fetus as the patient, and to neglect the needs of the mother. Katz-Rothman B: op. cit note 47

    • Google Scholar

55. A similar concern has already been raised about the related medical technology for pre-natal screening. Katz-Rothman has argued that such screening, even for narrow “disease-prevention” purposes, has a subversive effect on the unconditional love of a mother for an intended child. That effect will be even more subversive if screening is used, as it may well be, for more “positive” eugenic purposes. Katz-Rothman B: The tentative pregnancy: Pre-natal diagnosis and the future of motherhood. New York, Viking, 1986

    • Google Scholar
56. The Repository for Germinal Choice.
    in: See Blank R.H. Regulating Reproduction. Columbia University Press, New York1990
    • Google Scholar

57. Reported in Newsweek, Feb. 14, 1983, p 76; New York Times, Feb. 6, 1983; Los Angeles Times, Feb. 3, 1983

    • Google Scholar

58. See Weedn VW, op. cit. note 3

    • Google Scholar

59. Andrews L, op. cit. note 33, p 250

    • Google Scholar

60. 410 US 113 (1973)

    • Google Scholar

61. 38 US 479 (1965)

    • Google Scholar

62. State v. Merrill, 450 N.W. 2d 318 (1990)

    • Google Scholar

63. For a general discussion of this issue, see Wachbroit R: Technology’s mixed blessings. Report from the Institute for Philosophy and Public Policy 10(2):6, 1990

    • Google Scholar

64. Even apart from these complications, the moral significance of potentiality is unclear. See Wasserman D, Strudler A: Persons and potential persons. Report from the Institute for Philosophy and Public Policy 10(2):4, 1990

    • Google Scholar

65. See US Congress OTA, op. cit. note 1, p 252. Several other states have enacted legislation regulating IVF for reproductive purposes. Pennsylvania requires regular reports from doctors performing IVF, while Louisiana and Florida make it a crime to sell fertilized embryos for any purpose. Broad prohibitions on fetal research in several states may be taken to bar the cryopreservation of “surplus” embryos following IVF. See King PA: Reproductive technologies. In Childress JF, King PA, Rothenberg KE, et al: BioLaw: A Legal and Ethical Reporter, vol I: Resource Manual. Lanham, MD, University Publications of America, 1989, p 165

    • Google Scholar

66. Illinois Abortion Act of 1977 Sec. 4. See Weedn VW, op. cit. note 3, pp 262-263

    • Google Scholar
67. • Court of Appeals of Tennessee
    United States Law Week. 1990; 59: 2205
    • Google Scholar

68. United States District Court, Southern District of New York, 74 Civ. 3588, 1978

    • Google Scholar
69. • See Smith G.P.
    Australia’s frozen “orphan” embryos: A medical, legal and ethical dilemma.
    J Fam Law. 1985; 24: 27
    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
70. • Kymlicka W.
    Rethinking the family.
    Philosophy and Public Affairs. 1991; 20 (91-92): 77
    • Google Scholar