Regulating reproductive technologies: Timing, uncertainty, and donor anonymity

Boston University Law Review

Volumn 90, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 1189-1219

  Bernstein, Gaia ^a  

^a SETON HALL UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 77955222393     PISSN: 00068047     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (289)

1. SHARI ROAN &JEFF GOTTLIEB, Octuplets Rattle Fertility Experts, L.A. TIMES, JAN. 28, 2009, AT AL.
2. See, e.g., KIM YOSHINO &JESSICA GARRISON, States Consider Stricter Rules on Fertility Industry
3. Some Doctors Worry that Abortion Rights Could Be Limited, L.A. TIMES, MAR. 6, 2009, AT A8. TO COMPARE STATES' REACTIONS, SEE, FOR EXAMPLE, ETHICAL TREATMENT OF HUMAN EMBRYOS ACT, S.B. 169, 150TH GEN. ASSEM. (GA. 2009), available at http://www.legis.ga.gov/legis/2009-10/pdf/sbl69.pdf;
4. H.B. 810, 95TH GEN. ASSEM., REG. SESS. (MO. 2009), available at HTTP://WWW.HOUSE.MO.GOV/BILLTRACKING/BILLS091/BILTXT/INTRO/HB0810I.HTM.
5. NAOMI R. CAHN, TEST TUBE FAMILIES: WHY THE FERTILITY MARKET NEEDS LEGAL REGULATION (2009).
6. Id. AT 4, 24-25.
7. Id. AT 52-64.
8. Id. AT 25, 153, 194-96, 197-200.
9. Id. AT 88-113.
10. Id.
11. Id. AT 27, 211-12.
12. Id.
13. Id. AT 125-29.
14. Id. AT 116, 228-34.
15. THERE ARE OTHER COMMENTATORS AND GROUPS ADVOCATING THAT THE UNITED STATES ADOPT A COMPREHENSIVE REGULATORY REGIME, SEE, FOR EXAMPLE, PRESIDENT'S COUNCIL ON BIOETHICS, REPRODUCTION &RESPONSIBILITY: THE REGULATION OF NEW TECHNOLOGIES 183-240 (2004), available at HTTP://BIOETHICS.GEORGETOWN.EDU/PCBE/ REPORTS/REPRODUCTIONANDRESPONSIBILITY/-PCBE-FINAL-REPRODUCTION-AND- RESPONSIBILITY.PDF (RECOMMENDING COMPREHENSIVE MONITORING AND OVERSIGHT OF ART IN PLACE OF THE CURRENT PATCHWORK OF REGULATION)
16. WELDON E. HAVINS &JAMES J. DALESSIO, The Ever-Widening Gap Between the Science of Artificial Reproductive Technology and the Laws Which Govern that Technology, 48 DEPAUL L. REV. 825, 829 (1999)
17. ROBERT L. STENGER, The Law and Assisted Reproduction in the United Kingdom and United States, 9 J.L. &HEALTH 135, 159 (1994- 1995) (ARGUING THAT THE UNITED KINGDOM'S HUMAN FERTILISATION AND EMBRYOLOGY ACT CAN GUIDE U.S. EFFORTS TO ADDRESS ASSISTED REPRODUCTIVE TECHNOLOGY).
18. For writings in the burgeoning field of law and technology theory scholarship, see generally Arthur Cockfield & Jason Pridmore, A Synthetic Theory of Law and Technology, 8 MINN. J. L. Sci. & TECH. 475 (2007)
19. Arthur J. Cockfield, Towards a Law and Technology Theory, 30 MANITOBA L.J. 383 (2003-2004);
20. Gregory N. Mandel, History Lessons for a General Theory of Law and Technology, 8 MINN. J. L. Sci. & TECH. 551 (2007)
21. Andrea M. Matwyshyn, Technology, Commerce, Development, Identity, 8 MlNN. J. L. Sci. & TECH. 515 (2007)
22. Lyria Bennett Moses, Understanding Legal Responses to Technological Change: The Example of In Vitro Fertilization, 6 MINN. J. L. Sci. &TECH. 505 (2005).
23. Gaia Bernstein, The Socio-Legal Acceptance of New Technologies: A Close Look at Artificial Insemination, 77 WASH. L. REV. 1035, 1060-71 (2002) (describing the advent of artificial insemination into popular use).
24. CAHN, supra note 3, at 209-10.
25. See generally Gaia Bernstein, When New Technologies Are Still New: Windows of Opportunity for Privacy Protection, 51 Vox. L. REV. 921 (2006) (arguing that regulation to change privacy norms online is less likely to be effective once these norms are entrenched).
26. Pub. L. No. 110-233, 122 Stat. 881 (2008) (codified in scattered sections of 26, 29, and 42 U.S.C.).
27. See Jessica L. Roberts, Preempting Discrimination: Lessons from the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, 63 VAND. L. REV. 439, 471-74 (2010)
28. Perry Wayne, Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008: The Federal Answer for Genetic Discrimination, 5 J. HEALTH & BIOMEDICAL L. 33, 38-39 (2009).
29. See Jhordan C. v. Mary K., 224 Cal. Rptr. 530, 531 (Ct. App. 1986).
30. Eric Blyth & Lucy Frith, Donor-Conceived People's Access to Genetic and Biographical History: An Analysis of Provisions in Different Jurisdictions Permitting Disclosure of Donor Identity, 23 INT'L J. L. POL'Y & FAM. 174, 175 (2009).
31. CAHN, supra note 3, at 114-29, 215-37.
32. See, e.g., id. at 217-28;
33. Lucy Frith, Gamete Donation and Anonymity: The Ethical and Legal Debate, HUM. REPROD., May 2001, at 818, 820-22 (discussing the interests of parents and children)
34. Sonia M. Suter, Giving in to Baby Markets: Regulation Without Prohibition, 16 MICH. J. GENDER & L. 217, 260-73 (2009) (discussing the interests of parents, donors, and children);
35. Iike Turkmendag, Robert Dingwall & Therese Murphy, The Removal of Donor Anonymity in the UK: The Silencing of Claims of Would-Be Parents, 22 INT'L J. L. POL'Y & FAM. 283, 292 (2008) (emphasizing the neglect of the interests of the parents under the new U.K. policy).
36. The technological life cycle is comprised of three stages: invention - the technical discovery; innovation - the first commercially successful application of the technology; and diffusion - the technology's widespread social adoption. GEORGE S. FORD, THOMAS M. KOUTSKY & LAWRENCE J. SPIWAK, U.S. DEP'T OF COMMERCE, TECH. ADMIN., A VALLEY OF DEATH IN THE INNOVATION SEQUENCE: AN ECONOMIC INVESTIGATION 10 (2007), http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/ papers.cfm7abstract-idsl093006
37. see also EVERETT M. ROGERS, DIFFUSION OF INNOVATIONS 11 (5th ed. 2003) (defining "diffusion as the process by which (1) an innovation (2) is communicated through certain channels (3) over time (4) among the members of a social system" (emphasis omitted))
38. Gaia Bernstein, In the Shadow of Innovation, 32 CARDOZO L. REV. (forthcoming 2010) (manuscript at 2, 39-57), available at http://papers.ssrn. com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract-idsl395779 (arguing for the importance of regulating the diffusion processes of new technologies).
39. CAHN, supra note 3, at 4, 24-25.
40. Id. at 52-64.
41. Id. at 52-62.
42. Id. at 194, 196.
43. Id. at 25, 197-200.
44. Id. at 153.
45. Id. at 162-63.
46. Id. at 88-113.
47. Id. at 88, 93-98.
48. Id. at 89, 107-12.
49. Id. at 109-03.
50. Id. at 99-107.
51. Id. at 27, 211-12.
52. Id. at 211-12.
53. Id at 125-29.
54. Id. at 117-21.
55. Id. at 116, 228-34.
56. See sources cited supra note 13.
57. Bernstein, supra note 15;
58. Gregory N. Mandel, Technology Wars: The Failure of Democratic Discourse, 11 MICH. TELECOMM. & TECH. L. REV. 117 (2005)
59. Lyria Bennett Moses, Adapting the Law to Technological Change: A Comparison of Common Law and Legislation, 26 U. N.S.W. L.J. 394 (2003)
60. Symposium, Toward a General Theory of Law and Technology, 8 MINN. J. L. SCI. & TECH. 441 (2007)
61. see also sources cited supra note 14.
62. In Test Tube Families, Cahn discusses extensively the need for regulation and the types of law, whether federal or state, that would be most suitable for regulating the different areas of ART. This Essay departs from where Cahn has left off. It assumes that regulation is necessary and examines the effects of such regulation on the uncertainty surrounding the use of ART and the effectiveness of such regulation despite the problem of timing. The type of regulatory tools used is an issue that is relevant to the topic timing, yet that discussion is beyond the scope of this Essay.
63. Bernstein, supra note 15, at 1060-71.
64. Lisa L. Behm, Legal, Moral & International Perspectives on Surrogate Motherhood: The Call for a Uniform Regulatory Scheme in the United States, 2 DEPAUL J. HEALTH CARE L. 557, 561-63 (1999) (stating that the first surrogacy through artificial insemination was practiced in the mid-1970s in California while the first gestational surrogacy (surrogacy via use of IVF) occurred in 1986).
65. Louise Brown was the first child to be born through IVF in 1978. See Peter Gwynne et al., All About That Baby, NEWSWEEK, Aug. 7, 1978, at 66.
66. CAHN, supra note 3, at 49-51.
67. Id. at 43-72. An alternative source of guidance is the non-binding guidelines of medical associations.
68. Id. at 62-64
69. Id. at 114-20.
70. See id. at 61;
71. Naomi R. Cahn & Jennifer M. Collins, Eight Is Enough, 103 Nw. U. L. REV. COLLOQUY 501, 507-08 (2009).
72. Technologies do not have determined uses but react to social reforms that seek to make them compatible with social values and structures. See Robert Heilbroner, Do Machines Make History?, in CONTROLLING TECHNOLOGY 213, 219-20 (William B. Thompson ed., 1991)
73. John Law & Michel Callon, The Life and Death of an Aircraft: A Network Analysis of Technological Change, in SHAPING TECHNOLOGY/BUILDING SOCIETY: STUDIES IN SOCIOTECHNICAL CHANGE 21, 21 (Wiebe E. Bijker & John Law eds., 1992)
74. Stewart Russell & Robin Williams, Social Shaping of Technology: Frameworks, Findings and Implication for Policy with Glossary of Social Shaping Concepts, in SHAPING TECHNOLOGY, GUIDING POLICY: CONCEPTS, SPACES AND TOOLS 37, 39 (Knut H. S0rensen & Robin Williams eds., 2002).
75. See Bernstein, supra note 17, at 937-46 (drawing on insights from the law and social norms theory, the economic theory of path dependence, and the science and technology studies theory of "Closure" to demonstrate the importance of timing for legal regulations).
76. See, e.g.. Matt Richtel & Sharon Waxman, The Media Business; Film Studios Prepare Suits on Illegal Sharing of Files, N.Y. TIMES, NOV. 5, 2004, at C4.
77. Ben Depoorter & Sven Vanneste, Norms and Enforcement: The Case Against Copyright Litigation, 84 OR. L. REV. 1127, 1127 (2005);
78. David W. Opderbeck, Peer-to- Peer Networks, Technological Evolution, and Intellectual Property Reverse Private Attorney General Litigation, 20 BERKELEY TECH. L.J. 1685, 1688 (2005)
79. ELEC. FRONTIER FOUND., RIAA V. THE PEOPLE: TWO YEARS LATER 2 (2005), http://w2.eff.org/TP/P2P/RIAAatTWO-FINAL.pdf;
80. Press Release, NPD Group, Inc., The NPD Group: Consumers Acquired More Music in 2007, But Spent Less (Feb. 26, 2008), available at http://www.npd.com/ press/releases/press-080226a.html. For a general discussion of the effect of law on file-sharing social norms
81. see Yuval Feldman & Janice Nadler, The Laws and Norms of File Sharing, 43 SAN DIEGO L. REV. 577 (2006).
82. See Steven A. Hetcher, The Music Industry's Failed Attempt to Influence File Sharing Norms, 7 VAND. J. ENT. L. & PRAC. 10, 10-13 (2004)
83. Chris Collins, Downloading Lowdown: File-Sharing Is the Moral Equivalent of Stealing a Car, SEATTLE TIMES, Oct. 25, 2003, at D4 (quoting Gallop poll showing that eighty-three percent of thirteen- to seventeen- year-olds considered downloading music to be morally acceptable).
84. See Stuart P. Green, Plagiarism, Norms, and the Limits of Theft Law: Some Observations on the Use of Criminal Sanctions in Enforcing Intellectual Property Rights, 54 HASTINGS L.J. 167, 173, 237 (2002).
85. See Dan M. Kahan, Gentle Nudges vs. Hard Shoves: Solving the Sticky Norms Problem, 67 U. Cm. L. REV. 607, 608 (2000);
86. Elizabeth S. Scott, Social Norms and the Legal Regulation of Marriage, 86 VA. L. REV. 1901, 1926-28 (2000).
87. See Francesco Parisi & Georg von Wangenheim, Legislation and Countervailing Effects from Social Norms, in THE EVOLUTION AND DESIGN OF INSTITUTIONS 25, 30 (Christian Shubert & Georg von Wangenheim eds., 2006).
88. Francesco Parisi & Georg von Wangenheim, Legislation and Countervailing Effects from Social Norms, in THE EVOLUTION AND DESIGN OF INSTITUTIONS 25, 2006 Id.
89. See Lawrence Lessig, The Regulation of Social Meaning, 62 U. CHI. L. REV. 943, 986- 87, 999 (1995)
90. Parisi & Wangenheim, supra note 59, at 32;
91. Parisi & Wangenheim, supra note 59, at 32; Paul H. Robinson, Why Does Criminal Law Care What the Layperson Thinks Is Just? Coercive Versus Normative Crime Control, 86 VA. L. REV. 1839, 1861-63 (2000)
92. Lior Jacob Strahilevitz, How Changes in Property Regimes Influence Social Norms: Commodifying California's Carpool Lanes, 75 IND.LJ. 1231, 1266-67 (2000).
93. See TOM R. TYLER, WHY PEOPLE OBEY THE LAW 19-57 (1990)
94. Parisi & Wangenheim, supra note 59, at 27-28.
95. See ROGERS, supra note 24, at 180, 394-98;
96. Brian Butler & Deborah E. Gibbons, Power Distribution as a Catalyst and Consequence of Decentralized Technology Diffusion, in INFORMATION SYSTEMS INNOVATION AND DIFFUSION: ISSUES AND DIRECTIONS 3, 4-5, 12-13 (Tor J. Larson & Eugene McGuire eds., 1998)
97. Steven R. Salbu, Who Should Govern the Internet?: Monitoring and Supporting a New Frontier, 11 HARV. J.L. & TECH. 429, 435-36 (1998)
98. Lawrence B. Solum & Minn Chung, The Layers Principle: Internet Architecture and the Law, 79 NOTRE DAME L. REV. 815, 832 (2004).
99. See ROGERS, supra note 24, at 180, 394-98;
100. DONALD A. SCHON, BEYOND THE STABLE STATE 80-115 (1971).
101. An exception is artificial insemination with a known donor sperm, which can be administered at home without the intervention of an institutional setting.
102. LAWRENCE M. FRIEDMAN, THE LEGAL SYSTEM: A SOCIAL SCIENCE PERSPECTIVE 69, 71 (1975).
103. See generally George J. Stigler, The Optimum Enforcement of Laws, 78 J. POL. ECON. 526 (1970) (providing a theory of rational law enforcement).
104. FRIEDMAN, supra note 66, at 83.
105. See Depoorter & Vanneste, supra note 55, at 1137.
106. See, e.g., MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster Ltd., 545 U.S. 913, 920 (2005) (litigating the music industry's lawsuit to impose liability on the file sharing distribution system Grokster)
107. Oren Bracha & Frank Pasquale, Federal Search Commission? Access, Fairness, and Accountability in the Law of Search, 93 CORNELL L. REV. 1149, 1151 (2008) (arguing for the need to regulate search engines)
108. Stacey L. Dogan & Mark A. Lemley, Trademarks and Consumer Search Costs on the Internet, 41 Hous. L. REV. 777, 804 (2004) (referring to trademark owners' arguments that search engines providing advertisements should be liable for unlawfully contributing to trademark infringement).
109. FRIEDMAN, supra note 66, at 85.
110. See, e.g., Mark A. Lemley & Philip J. Weiser, Should Property or Liability Rules Govern Information, 85 TEX. L. REV. 783, 800-01 (2007) (discussing the inability of Google to feasibly prevent the display of thumbnails of infringing photos);
111. Matthew Schruers, The History and Economics of ISP Liability for Third Party Content, 88 VA. L. REV. 205, 208-22 (2002)
112. (discussing the history of ISP liability, focusing on the enactment of § 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. § 230 (2006), which granted ISPs immunity for liability from actions of users).
113. The latest government report is from 2006, and it lists 483 facilities that provide ART. U.S. DEP'T OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVS., Cms. FOR DISEASE CONTROL, ASSISTED REPRODUCTIVE TECHNOLOGY SUCCESS RATES 5, 567-70 (2006), available at http://www.cdc.gov/ART/ART2006/508PDF/2006ART.pdf.
114. On the effects of regulation in the medical arena, see Robert Gatter, Human Subjects Research and Conflicts of Interest: Walking the Talk of Trust in Human Subjects Research: The Challenge of Regulating Financial Conflicts of Interest, 52 EMORY L.J. 327, 383-99 (2003) (arguing that legal enforcement in the medical arena can backfire by undermining trustworthiness);
115. James Gibson, Doctrinal Feedback and (Un) reasonable Care, 94 VA. L. REV. 1641, 1653-92 (2008) (arguing that legal regulation can lead to over-compliance by doctors)
116. Carol A. Heimer, Competing Institutions: Law, Medicine, and Family in Neonatal Intensive Care, 33 LAW & SOC'Y REV. 17, 47 (1999) (showing that regulatory law is more likely to achieve compliance in the medical arena than tort law and criminal law).
117. Although even where legal certainty exists, individuals can find themselves in unanticipated legal situations due to lack of knowledge and understanding of the law; legal uncertainty increases the probability of such a result.
118. See Elizabeth S. Anderson & Richard H. Pildes, Expressive Theories of Law: A General Restatement, 148 U. PA. L. REV. 1503, 1508-09 (2000); Richard H. McAdams, The Origin, Development, and Regulation of Norms, 96 MICH. L. REV. 338, 398 (1997)
119. Richard H. McAdams, The Origin, Development, and Regulation of Norms, 96 MICH. L. REV. 338, 398 (1997)
120. Steven D. Smith, Expressivist Jurisprudence and the Depletion of Meaning, 60 MD. L. REV. 506, 510, 515 (2001).
121. McAdams, supra note 75, at 400-09.
122. Law is not the only influence on individuals' perception of risk regarding a certain technology. A rich literature describes the effects of individuals' perceptions of safety and risk involved in the use of a technology.
123. See generally DANIEL M. KAMMEN & DAVID M. HASSENZAHL, SHOULD WE RISK IT? EXPLORING ENVIRONMENTAL, HEALTH, AND TECHNOLOGICAL PROBLEM SOLVING (1999) (discussing the effects of risk analysis on decision making);
124. THE SOCIAL AND CULTURAL CONSTRUCTION OF RISK: ESSAYS ON RISK SELECTION AND PERCEPTION (Branden B. Johnson & Vincent T. Covello eds., 1987) (discussing the social construction of risk)
125. CASS R. SUNSTEIN, RISK AND REASON: SAFETY, LAW, AND THE ENVIRONMENT (2002) (discussing ways to reduce risks rationally by promoting governmental responses);
126. Mandel, supra note 43.
127. Bernstein, supra note 15, at 1048-97.
128. N.Y. STATE TASK FORCE ON LIFE & LAW, SURROGATE PARENTING: ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PUBLIC POUCY 19 (1988)
129. Bernstein, supra note 15, at 1083-97 (providing data on the rising popularity of artificial insemination and demonstrating that legalization was an important factor in the increased diffusion of artificial insemination).
130. The legal shift was comprised of several well-publicized cases and the enactment of state laws.See GA. CODE ANN. § 74-9904 (1973) (enacting the first statute to legitimize artificial insemination in 1967);
131. People v. Sorensen, 437 P.2d 495, 498-99 (Cal. 1968) (ruling that a child born through artificial insemination is legitimate and the husband of the woman who gave birth through insemination is liable for support)
132. Gursky v. Gursky, 242 N.Y.S.2d 406, 411-12 (Sup. Ct. 1963) (ruling that the husband of the woman who gave birth to a child through artificial insemination is liable for support).
133. The Uniform Parentage Act, which was adopted in 1973, provided that artificial insemination with donor sperm is legal and that the donor is not the legal father. UNIF. PARENTAGE ACT §§ 201, 204 (amended 2002), 9B U.L.A. 11, 13 (2001). By the end of the 1970s at least fifteen states had statutes regulating artificial insemination. Bernstein, supra note 15, at 1090. Furthermore, since the 1960s courts began to align with state legislatures and ceased to issue conflicting opinions.
134. Id. at 1083-97
135. Carol A. Donovan, The Uniform Parentage Act and Nonmarital Motherhood-by-Choice, 11 N.Y.U. REV. L. & Soc. CHANGE 193, 208 (1982-1983).
136. See Gaia Bernstein, The Paradoxes of Technological Diffusion: Genetic Discrimination and Internet Privacy, 39 CONN. L. REV. 241, 287 (2006).
137. For evidence of the fear of genetic discrimination, see COUNCIL FOR RESPONSIBLE GENETICS, GENETIC DISCRIMINATION: POSITION PAPER 3 (2001), http://www.councilforresponsiblegenetics.org/pageDocuments/2RSW5M2HJ2.pdf
138. Henry T. Greely, Genotype Discrimination: The Complex Case for Some Legislative Protection, 149 U. PA. L. REV. 1483, 1489-91 (2001)
139. Mark A. Hall & Stephen S. Rich, Genetic Privacy Laws and Patients' Fear of Discrimination by Health Insurers: The View from Genetic Counselors, 28 J.L. MED. & ETHICS 245, 246-48 (2000)
140. Eric Mills Holmes, Solving the Insurance/Genetic Fair/Unfair Discrimination Dilemma in Light of the Human Genome Project, 85 Ky. L.J. 503, 556-57 (1996-1997)
141. Paul A. Lombardo, Genetic Confidentiality: What's the Big Secret?, 3 U. Cm. L. SCH. ROUNDTABLE 589, 596 (1996)
142. Geoffrey Cowley et al., Flunk the Gene Test and Lose Your Insurance, NEWSWEEK, Dec. 23, 1996, at 48.
143. Bernstein, supra note 81, at 255-62.
144. Id.
145. Id. at 262-63.
146. Id. at 264.
147. Pub. L. No. 110-233, 122 Stat. 881 (2008) (codified in scattered sections of 26, 29, and 42 U.S.C.).
148. See Roberts, supra note 19, at 471-74;
149. Wayne, supra note 19, at 38-39.
150. The number of reported ART procedures increased from 64, 724 in 1996 to 134, 260 in 2005. L.A. Schieve, G. Jeng, L.S. Wilcox & M.A. Reynolds, Use of Assisted Reproductive Technology - United States, 1996 and 1998, 51 MORBIDITY & MORTALITY WKLY. REP. 97, 97, available at http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/ mrnwrhtml/rnrn5105a2.htm
151. Victoria Clay Wright et al., Assisted Reproductive Technology Surveillance - United States, 2005, 57 MORBIDITY & MORTALITY WKLY. REP. 1, 1 (2008), available at http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5705al.htm.
152. The percentage of live births from ART procedures in 1998 was 24.7%, while in 2005 the percentage was 35%. Schieve et al., supra note 89, at 97; Wright et al., supra note 89, at 5. Although other factors such as the age of the women and the specific procedure used can affect the number of live births, the reports indicate overall progress in the results achieved by ART technology.
153. 117 P.3d 673 (Cal.2005).
154. Id. at 682
155. see also Jhordan C. v. Mary K., 224 Cal. Rptr. 530, 531 (Ct. App. 1986) (granting paternity to a known donor who donated sperm to a lesbian couple);
156. Robert E. Rains, What the Erie "Surrogate Triplets" Can Teach State Legislatures About the Need to Enact Article 8 of the Uniform Parentage Act (2000), 56 CLEV. ST. L. REV. 1, 9 (2008) (discussing J.F. v. D.B., 66 Pa. D. & C.4th 1, 17 (CP. 2004), in which the court preliminarily granted the surrogate primary physical custody, while granting the intended parents partial custody);
157. E. Gary Spitko, The Constitutional Function of Biological Paternity: Evidence of the Biological Mother's Consent to the Biological Father's Co- Parenting of Her Child, 48 ARE. L. REV. 97, 101-04 (2006) (analyzing case-law showing that while biological paternity alone does not give rise to constitutional protection, biological paternity coupled with some child-parent relationship does).
158. In re Marriage of Moschetta, 30 Cal. Rptr. 2d 893, 903 (Ct. App. 1994)
159. see also In re Baby M, 537 A.2d 1227, 1234 (N.J. 1988) (invalidating a surrogacy agreement and voiding the adoption of the child by the intended mother).
160. Blyth & Frith, supra note 21, at 174-76
161. see Mary Lyndon Shanley, Collaboration and Commodification in Assisted Procreation: Reflections on an Open Market and Anonymous Donation in Human Sperm and Eggs, 36 LAW & Soc. REV. 257, 266-70 (2002) (arguing for the need to prohibit anonymous gamete transfer).
162. CAHN, supra note 3, at 115.
163. For additional support for prohibiting donor anonymity in the United States, see, for example, Michelle Dennison, Revealing Your Sources: The Case for Non-Anonymous Gamete Donation, 21 J.L. & HEALTH 1, 3 (2007-2008) (arguing that "legislating the end of anonymous gamete donation" and allowing current children of anonymous gamete donation "the ability to access identifying information about their donors is in the best interest of all parties").
164. CAHN, supra note 3, at 114-29, 215-37
165. See generally Naomi Cahn, Necessary Subjects: The Need for a Mandatory National Donor Gamete Databank, 12 DEPAUL J. HEALTH CARE L. 203 (2009).
166. See CAHN, supra note 3, at 218-20;
167. Jean Benward et al., Maximizing Autonomy and the Changing View of Donor Conception: The Creation of a National Donor Registry, 12 DEPAUL J. HEALTH CARE L. 225, 232-34 (2009);
168. Shanley, supra note 94, at 268-70. Other reasons raised by advocates of open identity systems are health concerns related to genetic disease and the risk of incest.
169. See, e.g., Dennison, supra note 96, at 14-16.
170. See, e.g., CAHN, supra note 3, at 217-28;
171. Frith, supra note 23, at 820-22
172. Suter, supra note 23, at 260-73;
173. Turkmendag et al., supra note 23, at 291-305.
174. See sources cited supra note 24.
175. I have selected Sweden and Victoria because they are the first jurisdictions in which donor anonymity was prohibited. Therefore, donor-conceived children have reached or are reaching the age at which they can demand to know the donor's identity. Additionally, in these jurisdictions there is relatively more data than in other jurisdictions on the effects on the number of gamete donors. I have selected the United Kingdom as a representative of a jurisdiction in which anonymity was recently prohibited. The prohibition on anonymity in the United Kingdom is currently in the midst of a heated debate and, therefore, the effects of this move are well-documented and quantified. I should add that although I do not provide detailed information on the data in the other jurisdictions in which anonymity was prohibited, the overall situation of gamete shortage and long wait-lists in these jurisdictions does not appear to differ from the situation in Victoria, Sweden, and the United Kingdom.
176. Erling Ekerhovd, Anders Faurskov & Charlotte Werner, Swedish Sperm Donors Are Driven by Altruism, but Shortage of Sperm Donors Leads to Reproductive Travelling, 113 UPSALA J. MED. SCI. 305, 305 (2008).
177. M. Bygedemen, The Swedish Insemination Act, 70 ACTA OBSTET GYNECOL SCAND. 265, 266 (1991)
178. see also Ken Daniels & Othon Lalos, The Swedish Insemination Act and the Availability of Donors, 10 HUM. REPROD. 1871, 1871-72 (1995) (confirming that the number of children born through donor insemination dropped between 1983 and 1988/1989).
179. Bygedemen, supra note 103, at 266;
180. see also Daniels & Lalos, supra note 103, at 1872.
181. Bygedemen, supra note 103, at 266;
182. see also Daniels & Lalos, supra note 103, at 1871-72.
183. Daniels & Lalos, supra note 103, at 1872.
184. See id. at 1872-73.
185. Email from Henrik Nordin, Statistics Coordinator, Nat'l Bd. of Health & Welfare, to author (Jan. 29, 2010) (on file with the Boston University Law Review) (stating that the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare does not have information of the yearly number of new sperm donor and providing a list of clinics and hospitals from which the information can be collected).
186. Lars Hamberger, Anonymous and Non-Anonymous Gamete and Embryo Donations: Pros and Cons, 14 REPROD. BIOMEDICINE ONLINE 50, 51 (2007).
187. Ekerhovd et al., supra note 102, at 306, 311-12.
188. See Swedish Sperm Banks Unable to Meet Demand, UPI.COM, July 24, 2009, http://www.upi.com/Top-News/2009/07/24/Swedish-sperm-banks-unable-to-meet- demand/UPI-46501248453389.
189. See, e.g., id. (reporting on increased demand for donor sperm by same sex couples and tying the shortage to the prohibition on anonymity).
190. Since 2006, Sweden has begun prohibiting trading in eggs and sperm for profit; gamete owners who donate their gametes are still compensated. 8 ch. 6 § LAG OM GENETISK INTEGRITET [The Genetic Integrity Act], (Svensk fo¨rfattningssamling [SFS] 2006:351), available at http://www.smer.se/ Bazment/266.aspx.
191. The Infertility (Medical Procedures) Act 1984 (Vic) (Austl.).
192. The Infertility (Medical Procedures) Act 1984, Id.
193. The Infertility Act 1995 (Vic) s 70 (Austl.). For a description of the legislative history in Victoria.
194. see Moses, supra note 14, at 555-59.
195. In addition, the National Health and Medical Research Council in Australia publishes ethical guidelines requiring use only of gametes of donors who agree to release of information. These guidelines are not mandatory. AUSTL. NAT'L HEALTH & MED. RESEARCH COUNCIL, ETHICAL GUIDELINES ON THE USE OF ASSISTED REPRODUCTIVE TECHNOLOGY IN CLINICAL PRACTICE AND RESEARCH, § 6.1, at 25- 26 (2007), available at http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/-files-nhmrc/file/ publications/synopses/e78.pdf;
196. Moses, supra note 14, at 552.
197. The presentation of the data accounts for the effects of laws as they are enacted and discussed and even before they go into effect. The data presents the lowest and highest number of donors per year during the period represented. The data in this table is based on Helen Szoke, The Victorian Experience of Administering Donor Birth Registers, 1271 INT'L CONGRESS SERIES 357, 358 (2004).
198. Additional numbers derived from the publications of the Victorian Assisted Reproduction Treatment Authority (formerly Infertility Treatment Authority ("ITA")) are as follows: 25 in 1998; 29 in 1999; 38 in 2000; 28 in 2001; 10 in 2002; 14 in 2003; 23 in 2004 17 in 2005; 16 in 2006; 31 in 2007; 21 in 2008.
199. INFERTILITY TREATMENT AUTH., 1999 ANNUAL REPORT 25
200. INFERTILITY TREATMENT AUTH., 2000 ANNUAL REPORT 28
201. INFERTILITY TREATMENT AUTH., 2001 ANNUAL REPORT 25
202. INFERTILITY TREATMENT AUTH., 2002 ANNUAL REPORT 27
203. INFERTILITY TREATMENT AUTH., 2003 ANNUAL REPORT, 24
204. INFERTILITY TREATMENT AUTH., 2004 ANNUAL REPORT 24
205. INFERTILITY TREATMENT AUTH., 2005 ANNUAL REPORT 25
206. INFERTILITY TREATMENT AUTH., 2006 ANNUAL REPORT 25
207. INFERTILITY TREATMENT AUTH., 2007 ANNUAL REPORT 27
208. INFERTILITY TREATMENT AUTH., 2008 ANNUAL REPORT 31
209. INFERTILITY TREATMENT AUTH., 2009 ANNUAL REPORT 29. All of the Infertility Treatment Authority Reports are available at http://www.varta.org. au/www/257/1003057/displayarticle/1003573.html.
210. Both IVF and ICSI increase the likelihood of a successful treatment cycle. ICSI injects sperm into the egg enhancing the likelihood of successful fertilization of the egg, therefore increasing the likelihood of a successful IVF cycle. A cycle of IVF has a higher rate of success than a cycle of artificial insemination for patients with certain fertility problems. Both ICSI and IVF, therefore, reduce the number of treatment cycles and the amount of donor sperm needed. In addition, ICSI is effective in overcoming male infertility problems, therefore reducing the need for donor sperm because the woman partner's sperm can be used.
211. See generally Gabor T. Kovacs et al.. In Vitro Fertilization, a Practical Option After Failed Artificial Insemination with Donor Semen, 1 REPROD. FERTILITY & DEV. 383 (1989) (reporting better outcomes for couples undergoing IVF for tubal disease than those undergoing artificial insemination);
212. A.M.E. Lintsen et al., Predicting Ongoing Pregnancy Chances After IVF and ICSI: A National Prospective Study, 22 HUMAN REPROD. 2455 (2007) (reporting higher rates of successful cycles for IVF using ICSI compared to IVF without ICSI)
213. Lucette van der Westerlaken et al., Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection as a Treatment for Unexplained Total Fertilization Failure or Low Fertilization After Conventional In Vitro Fertilization, 83 FERTILITY & STERILITY 612, 615-616 (2005) (reporting higher success rates of fertilization using ICSI).
214. See, e.g., Belinda Hickman, Donors Lose Interest in Sperm Bank Deposits, AUSTRALIAN, Apr. 7, 1998, at 5
215. Lucie van den Berg, Shortfall for IVF Hopefuls, HERALD SUN (Austl.), Jan. 27, 2010, at 25.
216. See, e.g., Hickman, supra note 119, at 5
217. Clinic Asks Australian MPs to Donate Sperm, TURKISH DAILY NEWS, Jan. 14, 2005.
218. The Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Act 2006 (Cth) (Austl.), available at http://www.comIaw.gov.au/CornLaw/Legislation/Actlnsf/0/ 71AC9EAE45677788CA2572440012F18A/$file/1722006.pdf (prohibits donor compensation excluding reasonable expenses).
219. The relevant prohibition in the state of Victoria was enacted in 2008 and came into effect on Jan. 1, 2010. The Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction Act 2008 (Cth) s 17 (Austl.), available at http://www.legislation. vic.gov.au/Domino/Web-Notes/LDMS/PubLawToday.nsf/ al2f6f60fbd56800ca256de500201e54/6F6AAAA927441A70CA 25769600014441/$FILE/ 08-72a001.pdf;
220. June Carbone & Paige Gottheim, Markets, Subsidies, Regulation and Trust: Building Ethical Understandings into the Market for Fertility Services, 9 J. GENDER RACE & JUST. 509, 510, 538 (2006) (tying gamete shortage in Australia to the prohibition on compensation).
221. Human Fertilisation & Embryology Authority (Disclosure of Donor Information) Regulations, 2004, S.I. 2004/1511 (U.K.), available at http://www.opsi.gov.uk/SI/si2004/20041511.htm.
222. Id. art. 2, 12-4.
223. 124 Id.
224. New Donor Registrations, HUMAN FERTILISATION & EMBRYOLOGY AUTH., http://www.hfea.gov.uk/3411.html (last visited Mar. 9, 2010).
225. The numbers of newly registered sperm donors per year are: 224 in 2004; 250 in 2005; 285 in 2006; 364 in 2007; 384 in 2008. Id.
226. The numbers of newly registered egg donors per year are: 1029 in 2004; 923 in 2005; 783 in 2006; 956 in 2007; 1084 in 2008. Id.
227. See, e.g., Rebecca Camber, Britain Faces Fertility Crisis as Loss of Donor Anonymity Sees Sperm and Egg Donor Numbers Plummet, MAIL ONLINE, June 26, 2008, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1029712/Britain-faces-fertility- crisis-loss-donor-anonymity-sees-sperm-egg-donor-numbers-plummet.html.
228. See, e.g., id.
229. The numbers of newly registered egg share donors per year are: 504 in 2004; 417 in 2005; 339 in 2006; 471 in 2007; 377 in 2008.
230. HUM. FERTILISATION & EMBRYOLOGY AUTH., EGG SHARE DONORS AND NON-PATIENT EGG DONORS (2009), http://www.hfea.gov.uk/3412.html.
231. The number of patients treated with donated eggs shows a similar decline from 1794 in 2004 to 1416 in 2007.
232. HUM. FERTILISATION & EMBRYOLOGY AUTH., DONOR CONCEPTION - TREATMENTS (2009), http://www.hfea.gov.uk/donor-conception-treatments.html.
233. The number of patients treated with donated sperm shows a similar decline from 743 in 2004 to 541 in 2007. Id.
234. The decline does not appear to be a result of a general decline in the use of IVF because donor sperm treatments have declined from being 17% of all IVF treatments in 2004 to 9% of all IVF treatments in 2007. Id.
235. Id.
236. Turkmendag et al., supra note 23, at 294-97
237. Madeline Brindley, Mums Who Are Desperate for a Baby Join Give Hope Give Life Drive for Egg Donors, WESTERN MAIL, Nov. 17, 2008, at 22;
238. Camber, supra note 128 (reporting that most clinics have a wait of at least two years for donor sperm);
239. Jane Dreaper, IVF Donor Sperm Shortage Revealed, BBC NEWS, Sept. 13 2006, http://news.bbc.co.Uk/2/hi/healtli/5341982.stm (reporting on a BBC survey which included seventy-eight of the United Kingdom's eighty-five fertility clinics and which indicated over six month wait times for clients)
240. Gareth Edwards, It's a Barren Time for City's Infertility Unit, EVENING NEWS, Mar. 21, 2005, at 9
241. Denise Grady, Shortage of Sperm Donors in Britain Prompts Calls for Change, N.Y. TIMES, Nov. 12, 2008, at A10 (reporting of long waits and clinics stopping offering donor sperm)
242. U.K. Facing Sperm Donor Shortage: Experts Say Scarcity Prompted by Reversing Confidentiality Laws, CBS NEWS, Nov. 13, 2008, http://www.cbsnews.com/ stories/2008/ll/13/health/main4597958.shtml (discussing the scarcity of sperm in jurisdictions that prohibited donor anonymity and tying it to the prohibition on donor anonymity).
243. Dreaper, supra note 134.
244. Id.
245. See British Fertility Soc'y, Working Party on Sperm Donation Services in the UK: Report and Recommendations, 11 HUM. FERTILITY 147, 148 (2008).
246. The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act of 1990, ch. 37, § 12(e) (U.K.), available at http://www.opsi.gov.uk/Acts/actsl990/pdf/ukpga- 19900037-en.pdf
247. FAQ for Donors, HUMAN FERTILISATION & EMBRYOLOGY AUTH., (Apr. 14, 2009), http://www.hfea.gov.Uk/2627.html#2640 (last visited Mar. 9, 2010).
248. P.M.W. Janssens et al., A New Dutch Law Regulating Provision of Identifying Information of Donors to Offspring: Background, Content and Impact, 21 HUM. REPROD. 852, 854-55 (2006) (describing a drop in the number of donors as the debate on prohibiting anonymity commenced and pointing to the closure of half of all sperm banks)
249. Stacy Farrar, Sydney Sperm Shortage, SYDNEY STAR OBSERVER, Apr. 20, 2008, at 3, available at http://www.starobserver.com.au/news/2008/04/20/sydney-sperm- shortage/7354 (reporting on six-month wait-lists for sperm in Sydney);
250. Angus Roxburgh, Dutch Sperm Laws Threaten Donations, BBC NEWS, Aug. 12. 2004, http://news.bbc.co.Uk/2/hi/
251. Angus Roxburgh, Dutch Sperm Laws Threaten Donations, BBC NEWS, Aug. 12. 2004, http://news.bbc.co.Uk/2/hi/europe/3555202.stm (reporting on the closure of a Dutch sperm bank as a result of a lack of donors due to new legislation).
252. Colleen M. Padia, Infertility Takes Psychological Toll on Patients, UROLOGY TIMES, Oct. 1, 2006, at 14 (reporting on two studies that found increased levels of anxiety and depression among infertile couples)
253. T. Wischmann et al., Psychosocial Characteristics of Infertile Couples: A Study by the 'Heidelberg Fertility Consultation Service, ' 16 HUMAN REPROD. 1753, 1760 (2001) (finding a high level of anxiety and depression particularly for infertile women)
254. Christine Dunkel-Schetter & Marci Lobel, Psychological Reactions to Infertility, in INFERTILITY: PERSPECTIVES FROM STRESS AND COPING RESEARCH 29, 30-35 (Annette L. Stanton & Christine Dunkel-Schetter eds., 1991) (reviewing the findings of descriptive and empirical studies on the psychological effects of infertility).
255. But see id. at 50-53 (concluding that although some of the studies record evidence of adverse effects of infertility, the empirical evidence is not sufficiently clear and significant research remains to be conducted on the issue).
256. JUDITH N. LASKER & SUSAN BORG, IN SEARCH OF PARENTHOOD 19(1994).
257. P.P. Mahlstedt, The Psychological Component of Infertility, 43 FERTILITY & STERILITY 335, 343(1985).
258. B.E. Menning, The Emotional Needs of Infertile Couples, 34 FERTILITY & STERILITY 313, 317(1980).
259. POPULATION REFERENCE BUREAU, FERTILITY RATES FOR LOW BIRTH-RATE COUNTRIES, 1995 TO MOST RECENT YEAR (2008), http://www.prb.org/pdf08/TFRTable. pdf.
260. Hans-Peter Kohler, Francesco C. Billari & José Antonio Ortega, Low Fertility in Europe: Causes, Implications, and Policy Options, in THE BABY BUST: WHO WILL DO THE WORK? WHO WILL PAY THE TAXES? 48, 50, 56 (Fred R. Harris ed., 2006)
261. Elisabeth Rosenthal, Europe, East and West, Wrestles with Falling Birthrates, N.Y. TIMES ONLINE, Mar. 9, 2006, http://www.nytimesxonV2(K)6/09/03/ worl(l/europe/03iht-birth.2683302.htrnl.
262. Francesco C. Billari & Hans-Peter Kohler, Patterns of Lowest-Low Fertility in Europe 4-5 (Max Planck Inst, for Demographic Research, Working Paper No. WD-2002-040, 2002), available at http://www.demogr.mpg.de/papers/ working/wp-2002-040.pdf.
263. On the inferior quality of older gametes, see, for example, Linda J. Heffner, Advanced Maternal Age - How Old Is Too Old?, 351 NEW ENG. J. MED. 1927, 1927-28 (2004) (showing the higher incidence of miscarriage and chromosomal defects among older women due to the inferior quality of their eggs).
264. Ellen Waldman, What Do We Tell the Children?, 35 CAP. U. L. REV. 517, 551 (2006).
265. Daniels & Lalos, supra note 103, at 1873
266. Ekerhovd et al., supra note 102, at 312
267. Tracy Hampton, Anonymity of Gamete Donations Debated, 294 JAMA 2681, 2681 (2010); Waldman, supra note 147, at 551-52.
268. Frith, supra note 23, at 823
269. A. Lalos et al., Recruitment and Motivation of Semen Providers in Sweden, 18 HUM. REPROD. 212, 213, 216 (2003)
270. Szoke, supra note 117, at 359; Anne-Maria Suikkari, Med. Dir., Family Fed'n of Fin., Removing Donor Anonymity - What Were the Consequences?, Presentation at the Nordic Fertility Society (Aug. 8, 2009) (on file with the Boston University Law Review).
271. Frank J. Broekmans et al., Female Reproductive Ageing: Current Knowledge and Future Trends, 18 TRENDS IN ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM 1, 1 (2007);
272. Heffner, supra note 146, at 1927-28.
273. The British Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority agreed to consider whether to liberalize its compensation for donors.
274. Hum. Fertilisation & Embryology Auth., Statement Regarding Authority Decision to Review Sperm, Egg and Embryo Donation Policies (Dec. 9. 2009), http://www.hfea.gov.uk/5666.html
275. Clare Murphy, Is It Right to Pay Women for Their Eggs?, BBC NEWS, Dec. 9. 2009, http://news.bbc.co.Uk/2/hi/health/8401770.stm.
276. Ekerhovd et al., supra note 102, at 306
277. Murphy, supra note 151.
278. Lizette Alvarez, Spreading Scandinavian Genes, Without Viking Boats, N.Y. TIMES ONLINE, Sep. 30, 2004, http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/30Aintemational/ europe/30sperm.html;
279. Murphy, supra note 151
280. Guido Pennings, Legal Harmonization and Reproductive Tourism in Europe, 19 HUM. REPROD. 2689, 2691 (2004)
281. Roxburgh, supra note 139 (reporting that Belgian clinics near the border of the Netherlands noticed a steady increase in Dutch patients as a result of the new Dutch law prohibiting anonymous sperm donation).
282. Dreaper, supra note 134.
283. Lawrence Shaw, Killing Sperm Donation, GUARDIAN.CO.UK., June 24, 2009, http://www.guardian.co.uk/cornmentisfree/2009/jun/24/sperm-donation-anonyniity.
284. The compensation for egg donors ranges from $5000 to $15, 000. Fertility Treatment: Donor Eggs and Embryos, BABYCENTER.COM, (Sept. 2006), http://www.babycenter.com/0-fertility-treatment-donor-eggs-and-embryos-4098.bc? page=2#articlesection7.
285. Lisa Ikemoto, Reproductive Tourism: Equality Concerns in the Global Market for Fertility, 27 LAW & INEQ. 277, 302-08 (2009) (arguing that fertility tourism affects inequality, because as more industrialized countries prohibit anonymity, less developed countries will become the destinations of fertility tourism)
286. Eric Blyth & Abigail Farrand, Reproductive Tourism: A Price Worth Paying for Reproductive Autonomy, 25 CRITICAL SOC. POL'Y 91 (2005).
287. On commodification generally, see MARGARET RADIN, CONTESTED COMMODITIES (1996).
288. Olga Van Den Akker, A Review of Family Donor Constructs: Current Research and Future Directions, 12 HUM. REPROD. UPDATE 91, 98 (2006).
289. For proposals advocating a voluntary donor registry, see Benward et al., supra note 98, at 240, which advocates a donor registry but recognizes that such contact cannot be compelled and Nanette R. Elster & Andrea Braverman, The Future Is Now: A Voluntary Gamete Donor Registry Is Feasible, 12 DEPAUL J. HEALTH CARE L. 195 (2009), which discusses the broad support among the symposium participants for the creation of a voluntary registry.