Legal aspects of fertility preservation

Principles and Practice of Fertility Preservation

Volumn , Issue , 2011, Pages 488-496

  Elster, Nanette R ^a  

^a DEPAUL UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84879500523     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511921896.045     Document Type: Chapter

References (41)

1. King L, Quinn GP, Vandaparampil ST et al. Oncology nurses’ perceptions of barriers to discussion of fertility preservation with patients with cancer. Clin J OncolNurs2008; 12: 467.
2. Carlson RH. Survey: little awareness of the ASCO fertility-preservation guidelines by cancer specialists. Oncol Times2009; 31: 26–30.
3. Schover LR, Brey K, Lichtin A, Lipshultz LI and Jeha S. Oncologists’ attitudes and practices regarding banking sperm before cancer treatment. J Clin Oncol2002; 20: 1890–7.
4. Walters EM, Benson JD, Woods EJ and Crister JK. The history of sperm cryopreservation. In: Pacey AA and Tomlinson MJ (eds.), Sperm BankingTheory and Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009: pp. 1–17.
5. Practice Committee of the American Society for ReproductiveMedicine and the Practice Committee of the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. Ovarian tissue and oocyte cryopreservation. Fertil Steril2008; 90: S241–6.
6. Lee SJ, Schover LR, Partridge AH et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology recommendations on fertility preservation in cancer patients. J Clin Oncol2006: 24; 1–16.
7. President’s Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems inMedicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research. Making Health Care Decisions. Washington DC: Government Printing Office, 1982: pp. 2–3.
8. Ethics Committee of the American Society for ReproductiveMedicine. Fertility preservation and reproduction in cancer patients. Fertil Steril2005; 83: 1622–8.
9. Forman EJ, Anders CK and Behera MA. A nationwide survey of oncologists regarding treatment-related infertility and fertility preservation in female cancer patients. Fertil Steril2010; 94: 1652–6. Canterbury v. Spence. 464 F.2d 772, 780 (D.C. Cir. 1972).
10. Friedman LC and Kramer RM. Reproductive issues for women with BRCA mutations. J Natl Cancer Instit Monographs2005; 34: 83–6.
11. Jeruss JS andWoodruff TK. Preservation of fertility in patients with cancer. N Engl J Med2009; 360: 902–11.
12. Rosoff PM and Kastur ML. Preserving fertility in young cancer patients: a medical, ethical and legal challenge. J Philos Sci Law 2003; 3. http://www. psljournal.com/archives/papers/preservingFert.cfm.
13. Lacey v. Laird, 166 Ohio St. 12; 139 N.E.2d 25; 1956 Ohio LEXIS 610; 1 Ohio Op. 2d 158, 1956.
14. Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 US 510 (1925).
15. Glantz LH. Research with children. Am J Law Med1998; 24: 213–44.
16. American Academy of Pediatrics, Committee on Bioethics. Informed consent, parental permission, and assent in pediatric practice. Pediatrics1995; 95: 314–17.
17. Ohio v. Akron Ctr. For Reprod. Health, 497 US 502, 510 (1990).
18. Bellotti v. Baird, 443 U.S. 622 (1979).
19. Capacity of minor to obtain treatment for venereal disease without consent of parent. A.R.S. 44–132.01 (2009).
20. Treatment for health-related problems. Md. Health-general Code Ann. 20–102 (2009).
21. Consent by assault victim to treatment. Cal. Fam. Code 6928 (2009).
22. Dolin G, Roberts DE, Rodriguez LM and Woodruff TK. Medical hope, legal pitfalls: potential legal issues in the emerging field of oncofertility. Santa Clara L Rev2009; 49: 673–716.
23. In re Guardianship of Hayes, 608 P.2d 635 (1980).
24. Additional protections for children involved as subjects in research. 45 C.F.R. 46 401, et seq. 2009.
25. Fallat ME, Hutter J, AAP Committee on Bioethics, AAP Section on Hematology/Oncology and AAP Section on Surgery. Preservation of fertility in pediatric and adolescent patients with cancer. Pediatrics2008; 121: e1461–9.
26. Robertson JA. Cancer and fertility: ethical and legal challenges. J Natl Cancer Instit Monograph2005; 34: 104–6.
27. Morreim EH. Medical research litigation and malpractice tort doctrines: courts on a learning curve. Houst J Health Law Policy2003; 4: 1–86.
28. Protection of human subjects. 45 C.F.R. 46, et. seq. (2009).
29. Criteria for IRB approval of research. 45 C.F.R. 46. 111.
30. General requirements for informed consent. 45 C.F.R. 46. 116.
31. The Practice Committee of the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology and the Practice Committee of the American Society for ReproductiveMedicine. Essential Elements of Informed Consent for Elective Oocyte Cryopreservation: a Practice Committee opinion. Fertil Steril2008; 90: S134–5.
32. Office for Human Research Protections. OHRP research involving children frequently asked questions. http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/researchfaq. html#q12. (Accessed Dec. 27, 2009)
33. Research not involving greater than minimal risk. 45 CFR 46.404.
34. Research involving greater than minimal risk but presenting the prospect of direct benefit to the individual subjects. 45 CFR 46.405.
35. Wharton J. Law and biology: “miracle” baby denied benefits. Am Bar Assoc J1996; 82: 38.
36. Woodward v. Commissioner, 760 N.E. 2d 257 (2002).
37. Peres J. Children from beyond the grave: surrogate carrying dead woman’s baby. Chicago Tribune. December 15, 1997, p. 1.
38. Tribune Staff Writers. Surrogate. Chicago Tribune. December 18, 1997, p. 13.
39. Parentage of child resulting from assisted conception. Va. Code Ann. 20–158 (2009).
40. National Conference of State Legislatures. State Laws Related to Insurance Coverage for Infertility Treatment, 2009.http://www.ncsl.org/IssuesResearch/Health/InsuranceCoverageforInfertilityLaws/tabid/14391/Default.aspx. (Accessed Dec. 22, 2009)
41. Infertility coverage.215 ILCS 5/356m. (2009).