Are you my Mommy? A Call for Regulation of Embryo Donation

Resumen

---

Introduction . I. History of Embryo Donation . A. History of Assisted Reproductive Technology. B. Gamete Donation. 1. Sperm Donation. 2. Egg (Ovum) Donation. C. Embryo Donation/Embryo Adoption. D. Legal Status of Embryos. 1. The Embryo as Property. 2. The Embryo as Deserving of Special Respect and Protection. 3. The Embryo as Human Tissue that May Be Donated, But Not Sold. 4. The Embryo as a Person. II. The Need for Legislative Regulation of Embryo Donation . A. The Need for Uniform Legal Classification of Embryos. B. Protecting the Child's Interests in the Future. 1. The Right to "Fit" Parents. 2. The Right to a Clear Determination of Parental Rights and Responsibilities. 3. The Right to Complete Identity Information and a Complete Medical History. C. Encouraging the Donation of Surplus Embryos to Infertile Couples. III. Extending Existing Adoption Law to Embryo Donation . A. The Inherent Incompatibilities Between Adoption Law and Embryo Donation. B. Establishing the Procedure as Embryo Donation, Not Embryo Adoption. 1. The Right to an Abortion. 2. Stem Cell Research. IV. Proposed Requirements in Embryo Donation Legislation . A. Suggested Requirements for Parties Undergoing Embryo Donation. 1. Guidelines for Donors. 2. Guidelines for Recipients. B. Creation of National Registries for Embryo Donation. C. Uniform Designation of Legal Rights and Responsibilities Associated with Parentage. Conclusion .

Ver el contenido completo de este documento

Extracto

---

Are you my Mommy? A Call for Regulation of Embryo Donation

The author would especially like to thank Teresa Anderson, B.S.N., R.N. and Elizabeth West, R.N.C., B.S.N. from the Institute for Reproductive Health in Cincinnati, Ohio, for their invaluable assistance with this Comment. Also, many thanks are extended to the editors who assisted with this work. Are you my mother?1

Introduction .

John and Mary Smith2 tried for two years to start a family, but they were unsuccessful.3 Their options were adoption or assisted reproduction.4They wanted their own children, so they decided to try assisted reproduction first.5 After undergoing testing, they underwent an in vitro fertilization procedure.6 The procedure was successful and produced eleven viable embryos.7 Three of these embryos were transferred to Mary; the rest were stored for later use.8 Unfortunately, the first attempt was not successful, so they tried again.9 Three of the stored embryos were again transferred-and this time, Mary became pregnant.10 Two of the three embryos had successfully implanted.11 Nine months later, Mary gave birth to twin daughters.12

The Smiths now have five remaining embryos cryopreserved13 in the fertility center.14 They pay annual storage fees of $400.15 They have decided not to use the embryos themselves.16 Now they must decide what to do with the remaining embryos.17 Their choices are to continue to keep the embryos in storage, paying the annual fees; thaw (i.e., destroy) the embryos; donate the embryos for scientific research; or donate the embryos to another infertile couple.18 They cannot decide upon the best option for them, so their embryos remain in storage.19

Doug and Tammy Jones20 faced the same dilemma.21 They, too, underwent successful in vitro fertilization and now have four children.22They had four embryos in storage, but the physicians informed them that Tammy would be unable to bear any additional children.23 After considering the options available to them, they chose to have their embryos thawed and destroyed.24 They chose this option because they were not comfortable having someone else raise their genetic children, and because their religious beliefs did not allow them to donate the embryos to science.25

Gregory and Jody Miller, on the other hand, chose to donate their surplus embryos to science.26 Because Jody was forty years old, they did not have the option of donating the embryos to another couple27-the chances of success with her embryos would be considerably lower than desired.28 They did not wish to destroy the embryos: they wanted to "do something purposeful with them."29 They did not see the embryos as children; rather, they saw them as something important that needed to have a useful purpose.30 They donated the embryos to Johns Hopkins University Medical Center for scientific research on genetic disorders.31

Andrew and Julia Thomas32 morally could not choose any option but donating their surplus embryos to another couple.33 They viewed the embryos as potential children.34 The fertility center offered this service, so they donated their surplus embryos anonymously to another couple using the center.35 Emotionally, it was a very difficult decision.36 They understood the draining nature of the assisted reproduction process.37 They tried to imagine how they would have felt if their procedure had not been successful.38 They knew they would have been devastated.39 Julia, though, was reluctant to donate the embryos because she would never know how her children were being raised.40 Because the process was anonymous, she would look at every child on the street, wondering if it were hers.41 Her concerns were outweighed, though, by her need to help others achieve what she had achieved-a family.42

Jacqui and Jeff Worthley also chose to donate their extra embryos to another couple.43 Unlike the Thomases, they wanted to choose the recipient couple.44 They posted information on an in vitro fertilization website, and they received many emails requesting their embryos.45 They used a questionnaire to narrow the candidate pool and eventually requested pictures of the potential recipient couples.46 They finally chose a couple who shared many of their physical traits.47 The Worthleys also set up certain stipulations to which both couples had to adhere: notify them of the gender of the child(ren); keep addresses current; and allow the child to contact them in the future.48 Unfortunately, the donated e...

Ver el contenido completo de este documento

---