France and the United States: The legal and ethical differences in assisted reproductive technology (art)

Medicine and Law

Volumn 26, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 117-135

  McGregor, J ^a   Dreifuss Netter, F ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA   (United States)

^b NONE   (France)

Author keywords

Artificial reproductive technologies; Embryos; Ethics of ART; Infertility; Law in France and United States; Reproductive rights

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; ARTIFICIAL INSEMINATION; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; EMBRYO DISPOSITION; EUROPEAN UNION; FERTILIZATION IN VITRO; FRANCE; GOVERNMENT REGULATION; HEALTH CARE ACCESS; HEALTH CARE COST; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HEALTH INSURANCE; INFERTILITY; INFERTILITY THERAPY; MEDICAL ETHICS; MEDICOLEGAL ASPECT; MORALITY; POLITICS; POSTHUMOUS CONCEPTION; REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS; SOCIAL JUSTICE; SPERM DONOR; UNITED STATES;

EID: 34247492785     PISSN: 07231393     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. In France, the first CECOS opened in 1970 (practicing AI with a donor).
2. Centre pour la conservation des œufs et du sperme humains
3. This was the birth of Amandine. The first baby born from the process was Louise Brown in 1978 in United Kingdom.
4. At the present time, oocytes cannot be frozen.
5. To illustrate the difference in the US, see the recent Pennsylvania court of Appeals case J.F. v D.B. (no.221 WDA 2005, A.2d (Pa Super. Ct. filed April 21, 2006) where the holding of the case was that a surrogate after giving birth to triplets, from the intended parents' sperm and egg, was found to lack standing to seek custody after the birth of the children.
6. Cass.civ.I, 9 janvier 1996, Dalloz 1996, J, p. 376, note F.Dreifuss-Netter
7. Nonetheless, a proposal (2006 June 26th #3225) was made by several members of the National Assembly in order to create a "double counter" for gametes dontation, one anonymous and one giving access to the donor's identity.
8. R v. Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, ex parte Blood. All Engl Law Rep. 1997 Feb 6;[1997] 2:687-704.
9. See the European conventions in English on the website [u www.europa.eu.int u].
10. See J Robertson, Children of Choice, Freedom and the new reproductive Technologies, (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1994).
11. The United States has a federal legal system with jurisdiction over matters delineated in the US Constitution, the 50 states have their own laws and constitutions ranging over matters specifically delegated to them or not addressed by the federal government.
12. Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965)
13. Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)
14. Skinner v. Oklahoma (316 U.S. 535, 62 S.Ct. 1110, 86 L. Ed. 1655 (1942))
15. Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)
16. The right to make those choices was not until recently fully accorded to women; see the history of marital rape statutes.
17. Interestingly, the issue may come up with attempts to limit reproductive cloning. The United States Congress is interested in prohibiting reproductive cloning. If reproductive cloning is a form of ART, and ART is understood as part of one's fundamental right to procreate, then would that law against cloning stand up to Constitutional scrutiny?
18. Lars Noah, "Assisted Reproductive Technologies and the Pitfalls of Unregulated Biomedical Innovation," 55 FLA. L. REV. (2003) at 617-18.
19. Maline Sangha, "Sixth Annual Review of Gender and Sexuality Law: VI Healthcare Law Chapter: Assisted Reproductive Technologies" 6 Geo. J. Gender & L. 805.
20. In the Matter of Baby M, (537 A. 2d. 1227 (N.J. 1988))
21. Johnson v. Calvert 851 P.2d 776, 778 (cal. 1993)
22. In re Buzzanca 61 Cal. App. 4th 1410, 72 Cal. Rptr. 2d, (1998)
23. Davis v. Davis 842 S.W.2d. 588, (Tenn 1992)
24. See the Practice Committee of the Am Society for Reproductive Medicine, Guidelines on the Number of Embryos Transferred, 82 Fertility and Sterility 773 (2004). HFEA prohibits the transfer of more than two eggs or embryos to a woman less than 40 years of age.
25. See The President's Council on Bioethics, Reproduction and Responsibility: The Regulation of new Technologies, at ch.9-10 (2004) [u www.bioethics.gov/reports/reproductionandresponsibility/index.html u]