Currents in contemporary ethics

Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics

Volumn 31, Issue 4, 2003, Pages 721-724

  Hoffman, Sharona ^a   Morriss, Andrew P ^a  

^a CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CONFERENCE PAPER; CRYOPRESERVATION; HUMAN CLONING; HUMAN RIGHTS; INHERITANCE; LEGAL ASPECT; MEDICAL ETHICS; OOCYTE; REPRODUCTION; SPERM; ARTICLE; CHILD; CHILD ADVOCACY; CLONING; HUMAN; INFERTILITY THERAPY; JURISPRUDENCE; POSTHUMOUS CONCEPTION;

CHILD; CHILD ADVOCACY; CLONING, ORGANISM; HUMANS; POSTHUMOUS CONCEPTION; REPRODUCTIVE TECHNIQUES; WILLS;

EID: 1542505652     PISSN: 10731105     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1748-720X.2003.tb00139.x     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (29)

1. th ed. 1942): 201.
2. See Sharona Hoffman & Andrew P. Morriss, Birth After Death: Perpetuities & the New Reproductive Technologies, Georgia Law Review (2004) for a detailed analysis of the Rule Against Perpetuities and how it is impacted by the availability of new reproductive technologies.
3. th ed. 1989).
4. The New York State Task Force on Life on Life and the Law, Assisted Reproductive Technologies: Analysis and Recommendations for Public Policy 292 (1998).
5. Susan M. Kerr et al., "Postmortem Sperm Procurement," Journal of Urology 2154, 2154 (1997): at 167.
6. Id. at 2156. The authors conducted a study that revealed a total of 82 requests made at 40 facilities in 22 different states in the U.S. between 1980 and 1995. Over half of the reported requests (43) were made during 1994 and 1995. Of the requests, 25 were honored at 14 facilities in 11 separate states. See id. at 2154.
7. Woodward v. Commissioner of Social Security, 760 N.E.2d 257, 272 (Mass. 2002).
8. Gillett-Netting v. Barnhart, 231 F.Supp.2d 961, 966 (2002).
9. th week of gestation. Id. at 708.
10. Rick Weiss, "Moral, space issues clash as embryos fill up freezers," The Plain Dealer, May 8, 2003 at A16.
11. Peter R. Brindsen et al., "Frozen Embryos: Decision Time in the U.K.", Human Reproduction 10, 3083, 3084 (1995). In the United States many facilities specify a two to five year storage period, providing the couple an option to extend the time period with mutual written consent. Task Force, supra note 4, at 293. In Australia, many programs impose a ten-year limit on embryo storage, after which a couple must agree to the disposition of any unused embryos, or the matter is decided by an institutional ethics committee. See Douglas M. Saunders et al., "Frozen Embryos: Too Cold to Touch? The Dilemma Ten Years On," Human Reproduction 10 3081 (1995). In England, a 1991 law dictated a five year limit to embryo storage and prohibited cryopreservation of embryos unless couples agreed in advance to the destruction of unused embryos after this period. Brindsen, supra at 3083; R. G. Edwards & Helen K. Beard, "Destruction of Cryopreserved Embryos: UK Law Dictated the Destruction of 3000 Cryopreserved Human Embryos", Human Reproduction 12:3 (1997). In May of 1996 the law was amended to allow couples who created embryos to obtain a five year extension of the storage period, but British fertility clinics nonetheless destroyed approximately 3,300 embryos for which no one requested extended cryopreservation. Youssef M. Ibrahim, "Ethical Furor Erupts in Britain: Should Embryos Be Destroyed?," New York Times, Aug. 1, 1996, at A1.
12. Peter R. Brindsen et al., "Frozen Embryos: Decision Time in the U.K.", Human Reproduction 10, 3083, 3084 (1995). In the United States many facilities specify a two to five year storage period, providing the couple an option to extend the time period with mutual written consent. Task Force, supra note 4, at 293. In Australia, many programs impose a ten-year limit on embryo storage, after which a couple must agree to the disposition of any unused embryos, or the matter is decided by an institutional ethics committee. See Douglas M. Saunders et al., "Frozen Embryos: Too Cold to Touch? The Dilemma Ten Years On," Human Reproduction 10 3081 (1995). In England, a 1991 law dictated a five year limit to embryo storage and prohibited cryopreservation of embryos unless couples agreed in advance to the destruction of unused embryos after this period. Brindsen, supra at 3083; R. G. Edwards & Helen K. Beard, "Destruction of Cryopreserved Embryos: UK Law Dictated the Destruction of 3000 Cryopreserved Human Embryos", Human Reproduction 12:3 (1997). In May of 1996 the law was amended to allow couples who created embryos to obtain a five year extension of the storage period, but British fertility clinics nonetheless destroyed approximately 3,300 embryos for which no one requested extended cryopreservation. Youssef M. Ibrahim, "Ethical Furor Erupts in Britain: Should Embryos Be Destroyed?," New York Times, Aug. 1, 1996, at A1.
13. Peter R. Brindsen et al., "Frozen Embryos: Decision Time in the U.K.", Human Reproduction 10, 3083, 3084 (1995). In the United States many facilities specify a two to five year storage period, providing the couple an option to extend the time period with mutual written consent. Task Force, supra note 4, at 293. In Australia, many programs impose a ten-year limit on embryo storage, after which a couple must agree to the disposition of any unused embryos, or the matter is decided by an institutional ethics committee. See Douglas M. Saunders et al., "Frozen Embryos: Too Cold to Touch? The Dilemma Ten Years On," Human Reproduction 10 3081 (1995). In England, a 1991 law dictated a five year limit to embryo storage and prohibited cryopreservation of embryos unless couples agreed in advance to the destruction of unused embryos after this period. Brindsen, supra at 3083; R. G. Edwards & Helen K. Beard, "Destruction of Cryopreserved Embryos: UK Law Dictated the Destruction of 3000 Cryopreserved Human Embryos", Human Reproduction 12:3 (1997). In May of 1996 the law was amended to allow couples who created embryos to obtain a five year extension of the storage period, but British fertility clinics nonetheless destroyed approximately 3,300 embryos for which no one requested extended cryopreservation. Youssef M. Ibrahim, "Ethical Furor Erupts in Britain: Should Embryos Be Destroyed?," New York Times, Aug. 1, 1996, at A1.
14. Peter R. Brindsen et al., "Frozen Embryos: Decision Time in the U.K.", Human Reproduction 10, 3083, 3084 (1995). In the United States many facilities specify a two to five year storage period, providing the couple an option to extend the time period with mutual written consent. Task Force, supra note 4, at 293. In Australia, many programs impose a ten-year limit on embryo storage, after which a couple must agree to the disposition of any unused embryos, or the matter is decided by an institutional ethics committee. See Douglas M. Saunders et al., "Frozen Embryos: Too Cold to Touch? The Dilemma Ten Years On," Human Reproduction 10 3081 (1995). In England, a 1991 law dictated a five year limit to embryo storage and prohibited cryopreservation of embryos unless couples agreed in advance to the destruction of unused embryos after this period. Brindsen, supra at 3083; R. G. Edwards & Helen K. Beard, "Destruction of Cryopreserved Embryos: UK Law Dictated the Destruction of 3000 Cryopreserved Human Embryos", Human Reproduction 12:3 (1997). In May of 1996 the law was amended to allow couples who created embryos to obtain a five year extension of the storage period, but British fertility clinics nonetheless destroyed approximately 3,300 embryos for which no one requested extended cryopreservation. Youssef M. Ibrahim, "Ethical Furor Erupts in Britain: Should Embryos Be Destroyed?," New York Times, Aug. 1, 1996, at A1.
15. Peter R. Brindsen et al., "Frozen Embryos: Decision Time in the U.K.", Human Reproduction 10, 3083, 3084 (1995). In the United States many facilities specify a two to five year storage period, providing the couple an option to extend the time period with mutual written consent. Task Force, supra note 4, at 293. In Australia, many programs impose a ten-year limit on embryo storage, after which a couple must agree to the disposition of any unused embryos, or the matter is decided by an institutional ethics committee. See Douglas M. Saunders et al., "Frozen Embryos: Too Cold to Touch? The Dilemma Ten Years On," Human Reproduction 10 3081 (1995). In England, a 1991 law dictated a five year limit to embryo storage and prohibited cryopreservation of embryos unless couples agreed in advance to the destruction of unused embryos after this period. Brindsen, supra at 3083; R. G. Edwards & Helen K. Beard, "Destruction of Cryopreserved Embryos: UK Law Dictated the Destruction of 3000 Cryopreserved Human Embryos", Human Reproduction 12:3 (1997). In May of 1996 the law was amended to allow couples who created embryos to obtain a five year extension of the storage period, but British fertility clinics nonetheless destroyed approximately 3,300 embryos for which no one requested extended cryopreservation. Youssef M. Ibrahim, "Ethical Furor Erupts in Britain: Should Embryos Be Destroyed?," New York Times, Aug. 1, 1996, at A1.
16. TASK FORCE; supra note 4, at 83.
17. I b i d.
18. Geoffrey Sher et al., In Vitro Fertilization 171 (1998).
19. Id. at 173-174.
20. A somatic cell is a cell other than a sperm or an egg. Taber's Cyclopedic Medical Dictionary, supra note 3, at 1704.
21. Task Force, supra note 4, at 390-91.
22. I b i Id
23. Lori B. Andrews & Nanette Elster, "Regulating Reproductive Technologies," Journal of Legal Medicine 21 (2000): 35, 64.
24. See Jose B. Cibelli, et al., "The First Human Cloned Embryo," Scientific American (November 24, 2001), available at http://www.sciam.com. The scientists hope to develop human embryos for therapeutic rather than reproductive purposes.
25. st sess., 2003 WL 550319 (Legal History), (February 25, 2003).
26. See, e.g., Robin McKie, "Dolly dies - but human cloning will still happen," The Observer (February 16, 2003).
27. See Walter Wadlington, "Artificial Conception: The Challenge for Family Law," Virginia Law Review. 65 (1983): 465; Harry D. Krause, "Equal Protection for the Illegitimate," Michigan Law Review 65:477 (1967); Charles Nelson Le Ray, Note, "Implications Of DNA Technology On Posthumous Paternity Determination: Deciding The Facts When Daddy Can't Give His Opinion," Boston College Law Review 35 (1994): 747, 794-795.
28. See Walter Wadlington, "Artificial Conception: The Challenge for Family Law," Virginia Law Review. 65 (1983): 465; Harry D. Krause, "Equal Protection for the Illegitimate," Michigan Law Review 65:477 (1967); Charles Nelson Le Ray, Note, "Implications Of DNA Technology On Posthumous Paternity Determination: Deciding The Facts When Daddy Can't Give His Opinion," Boston College Law Review 35 (1994): 747, 794-795.
29. See Walter Wadlington, "Artificial Conception: The Challenge for Family Law," Virginia Law Review. 65 (1983): 465; Harry D. Krause, "Equal Protection for the Illegitimate," Michigan Law Review 65:477 (1967); Charles Nelson Le Ray, Note, "Implications Of DNA Technology On Posthumous Paternity Determination: Deciding The Facts When Daddy Can't Give His Opinion," Boston College Law Review 35 (1994): 747, 794-795.