Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-06T10:55:31.044Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Recent Advances in Medically Assisted Conception: Legal, Ethical and Social Issues

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 February 2021

Bartha M. Knoppers  and
Sonia LeBris
Bartha M. Knoppers
Affiliation:
Faculty of Law, University of Montreal; Commissioner, Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies, Canada
Sonia LeBris
Affiliation:
Faculte de droit et de Science politique de Rennes, France
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A review of reports, bills and legislation from around the world, during the period from 1987 to 1991, reveals certain areas of consensus on the possible or actual, ethical and legal regulation of medically assisted conception. Other areas remain controversial, due not only to cultural and religious differences but also to the social significance of the very implementation of these new technologies. Irrespective of these differences, the reformulation of certain shared international principles of human rights permits a greater specificity both in their translation and in their application to medically assisted conception. Areas discussed include the dignity of the person, the security of human genetic material, the quality of services, the inviolability of the person and the inalienability of the person.

Type
Articles
Information
American Journal of Law & Medicine , Volume 17 , Issue 4 , 1991 , pp. 329 - 361
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics and Boston University 1991

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

Presented by Bartha M. Knoppers at the meeting of the World Health Organization Scientific Group on Recent Advances in Medically Assisted Conception held in Geneva on April 2-6, 1990. The five principles forming the Sections of this Article were accepted by this group of experts. All references are complete to December 31, 1990.

References

1 UNITED KINGDOM INTERIM LICENCING AUTHORITY REPORT 4 (1989).

2 For a discussion of the reports issued prior to 1987, see Knoppers & Sloss, Legislative Reforms in Reproductive Technology, 18 OTTAWA L. REV. 663 (1986). See also Knoppers, Reproductive Technology and International Mechanisms of Protection of the Human Person 32 MCGILL L.J. 336 (1987).

Since 1986, the following reports have been published or translated into English or French: Australia: New South Wales: NEW SOUTH WALES LAW REFORM COMM'N, IN VITRO FERTILIZATION, ARTIFICIAL CONCEPTION (REPORT 2) (1988); Austria: RAPPORT DU MINISTRE DES SCIENCES ET DU PROGRÉS AU PARLEMENT NATIONAL, QUELQUES ASPECTS FONDAMENTAUX DE LA GÉNÉTIQUE ET DE LA REPRODUCTION BIOLOGIQUE (1986) [AUSTRIAN REPORT]; PROJET DE LOI SUR L'ETABLISSEMENT D'UN CONSEIL ÉTHIQUE ET PROPOSITIONS RÉGLEMENTANT CERTAINES EXPÉRIMENTATIONS BIOMEDICALES, PROJET DE LOI ADOPTÉ PAR LE PARLEMENT LE 22 MAI 1987 [AUSTRIAN PROJET]; Belgium: PROPOSITION DE LOI DU 11 FÉVRIER 1987, cited in C. BYK, ÉTAT COMPARATIF DES RÉGLES ÉTHIQUES ET JURIDIQUES RELATIVES À LA PROCRÉATION ASSISTÉE [BELGIAN PROPOSITION]; Canada: Projet de Loi 125, Quebéc, 1st Sess., 34ème Législature (1990) [Canadian Projet]; MEDICAL RESEARCH COUNCIL OF CANADA, GUIDELINES ON RESEARCH INVOLVING HUMAN SUBJECTS (1987) [CANADIAN REPORT ON RESEARCH]; BARREAU DU QUÉBEC, RAPPORT DU COMITÉ SUR LES NOUVELLES TECHNOLOGIES DE LA REPRODUCTION (1988) [CANADIAN RAPPORT DU BARREAU]; MINISTÉRE DE LA SANTÉ ET DES SERVICES SOCIAUX DU QUÉBEC, RAPPORT DU COMITÉ DE TRAVAIL SUR LES NOUVELLES TECHNOLOGIES DE LA REPRODUCTION HUMAINE (1988) [CANADIAN RAPPORT SUR LES NOUVELLES TECHNOLOGIES]; AVIS SYNTHÉSE DU CONSEIL DU STATUT DE LA FEMME, LES NOUVELLES TECHNOLOGIES DE LA REPRODUCTION (1989) [CANADIAN AVIS DU CONSEIL DU STATUT DE LA FEMME]; MEDICAL RESEARCH COUNCIL OF CANADA, RECHERCHE SUR LA THÉRAPIE GÉNIQUE SOMATIQUE CHEZ LES HUMAINS (1990) [MEDICAL RESEARCH COUNCIL OF CANADA REPORT]; RECOMMENDATIONS DE L'ASSOCIATION DU BARREAU CANADIEN SUR LES NOUVELLES TECHNIQUES DE REPRODUCTION (1990) [CANADIAN BAR ASS'N RECOMMENDATIONS]; Finland: MINISTRY OF JUSTICE, DRAFT BILL ON THE TECHNIQUES OF HUMAN ARTIFICIAL PROCREATION; MINISTRY OF JUSTICE, DRAFT BILL AMENDING THE LAW REGULATING PATERNITY (1988); France: RAPPORT DU CONSEIL D'ETAT, DE L'ETHIQUE AU DROIT (1988) [FRENCH RAPPORT DU CONSEIL D'ETAT]; PROJET DE LOI RELATIF AUX SCIENCES DE LA VIE ET AUX DROITS DE L'HOMME, AVANT PROJET DE LOI (1989) [FRENCH AVANT PROJET BRAIBANT]; Germany: Association des Meédecins Allemands, 88é Congrés, 15 Mai 1985 [German A.M.A. Report]; RAPPORT DU GROUPE DE TRAVAIL CONSTITUÉ EN COMMUN PAR LE MINISTÉRE DE LA JUSTICE, FÉCONDATION IN VITRO, ANALYSE DU GÉNOME ET THÉRAPIE GÉNÉTIQUE (1985) [GERMAN BENDA REPORT], trad. C. BERGEAL, COMITÉ NATIONAL CONSULTATIF D'ÉETHIQUE Francais (1985); Ireland: INSTITUTE OF OBSTETRICIANS AND GYNAECOLOGISTS, IN VITRO FERTILISATION, passed by the Medical Council of the Department of Health of the Irish Government (1989) [IRISH IVF GUIDELINES]; Italy: MINISTERIAL COMMISSION ON ARTIFICIAL PROCREATION, SECONDA PROPOSA: NORMA SULLA FECONDAZIONE ARTIFICIALE E SUI TRATAMENTO DI GAMENTI EMBRYONI (1985) [ITALIAN MINISTERIAL COMMISSION REPORT]; CAMERA DEI E DI DEPUTATI, PROPOSTA DI LEGGE NO. 3749, DISCIPLINA DELLA FECONDAZIONE ARTIFICIALE UMANA [ITALIAN PROPOSTA DI LEGGE NO. 3749]; The Netherlands: Avis DE LA COMMISSION RELATIVE Á LA FÉCONDATION IN VITRO DU CONSEIL DE SANTÉ PUBLIQUE (1985) [NETHERLANDS AVIS DU CONSEIL DE SANTÉ]; New Zealand: LAW REFORM DIVISION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, NEW BIRTH TECHNOLOGIES: AN ISSUE PAPER ON AID, IVF, AND SURROGATE MOTHERHOOD (1985) [NEW ZEALAND PALMER REPORT]; Switzerland: INITIATIVE POPULAIRE SUISSE CONTRE L'APPLICATION ABUSIVE DES TECHNIQUES DE REPRODUCTION ET DE MANIPULATION GÉNÉTIQUE A L'ÉSPECE HUMAINE (1985) [SWISS INITIATIVE POPULAIRE]; ACADÉMIE SUISSE DES SCIENCES MEDICALES, DIRECTIVES MEDICO-ETHIQUES POUR LE TRAITEMENT DE LA STERILITE PAR FECONDATION IN VITRO ET TKANSFERT D'EMBRYONS (1985) [Swiss DIRECTIVES]; COMMISSION D'EXPERTS POUR LA GENETIQUE HUMAINE ET LA MEDECINE DE LA REPRODUCTION, RAPPORT PRESENTE AU DEPARTEMENT FÉDÉRAL DE L'INTÉRIEUR ET AU DÉPARTEMENT FÉDÉRAL DE LA JUSTICE ET POLICE (1988) [Swiss RAPPORT FEDERAL]; United Kingdom: VOLUNTARY LICENSING AUTHORITY, GUIDELINES FOR BOTH CLINICAL AND RESEARCH APPLICATIONS OF HUMAN IN VITRO FERTILIZATION (1986) [UNITED KINGDOM LICENSING REPORT], reprinted in 38 WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION, INTERNATIONAL DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGISLATION [INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS.] 402 (1987); VOLUNTARY LICENSING AUTHORITY, INTERIM LICENCING AUTHORITY FOR HUMAN IN VITRO FERTILISATION AND EMBRYOLOGY, GUIDELINES FOR ETHICS COMMITTEES FOR CENTRES OFFERING ASSISTED REPRODUCTION (1989) [U.K. INTERIM LICENSING AUTHORITY GUIDELINES], reprinted in 40 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS. 900 (1989); United States of America: AMERICAN FERTILITY SOCIETY, ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS OF THE NEW REPRODUCTIVE TECHNOLOGIES (1986) [hereinafter AMERICAN FERTILITY SOCIETY REPORT] (compensating for the absence of any federal or regulatory body or law).

See also COMMITTEE OF EXPERTS ON BIOETHICS (CAHBI), HUMAN ARTIFICIAL PROCREATION, INFORMATION DOCUMENT (Council of Europe 1989) [COUNCIL OF EUROPE REPORT], reprinted in 40 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS. 907 (1989); WORLD MEDICAL ASS'N, STATEMENT ON IN VITRO FERTILIZATION AND EMBRYO TRANSPLANTATION (1988) [WORLD MEDICAL ASS'N REPORT], reprinted in 39 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS. 267 (1988).

3 However, many countries and states have enacted legislation on artificial insemination and the filiation of the child. See, e.g., INSTITUT SUISSE DE DROIT COMPARÉ, PROCRÉATION ARTIFICIELLE, GÉNÉTIOJUE ET DROIT (1986).

Countries having enacted legislation that is actually in force on some or all aspects of fertilization procedures are as follows: Australia: Victoria: Infertility (Medical Procedures) Act of 1984; Infertility (Medical Procedures) Act of 1984 as amended by the Infertility (Medical Procedures (Amendment) Act of 1987; Infertility (Medical Procedures) Regulations of 1988; Queensland: Surrogate Parenthood Act of 1988 [Queensland Surrogate Act]; South Australia: Reproductive Technology Act of 1988 [South Australian Reproductive Technology Act], reprinted in 39 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS. 866 (1988); Bulgaria: Ordinance of the Ministry of National Health on Artificial Fertilization of Women of 30 May 1987 [Bulgarian Ordinance], reprintedin 41 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS. 75 (1990); Czechoslovakia: Binding Instruction of the Ministry of Health, No. 132 of 10 November 1982 [Czechoslovakian Binding Instruction]; Denmark: Law No. 353 ofjune 1987 on the Establishment of an Ethical Council and the Regulation of Certain Forms of Biomedical Research [Danish Law], reprinted in 39 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS. 95 (1988); France: Décret No. 88-327 du 8 Avril 1988 Relatif aux Activités de Procréation Médicalement Assistée, J.O. du 9 Avril 1988 [French Décret No. 88-327], reprinted in 39 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS. 645 (1988); Décret No. 88-328 du 8 Avril 1988 Portant Création de la Commission Nationale de Medecine et de Biologie de la Reproduction, J.O. du 9 Avril 1988 [French Decret No. 88-328], reprinted in 39 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS. 647 (1988); Loi No. 88-1138 du 20 Décembre 1988 Relative a la Protection des Personnes qui se Prétent a des Recherches Biomedicals, J.O. du 22 Decembre 1988 [French Loi du 20 Decembre 1988], reprintedin 40 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS. 109 (1989); Germany: Law for Protection of Embryos [German Law], reprinted in 42 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS. 60 (1991); Hungary: Ordinance No. 7 of 22 March 1989 of the Minister of Health and Social Affairs amending Ordinance No. 12 of September 1981 of the Minister of Health on Artificial Insemination [Hungarian Ordinance], reprintedin 41 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS. 75 (1990); Israel: The Public Health (in vitro Fertilization) Regulations of 1987 [Israel IVF Regulation], reprinted in 38 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS. 779 (1987); Mexico: Regulations for the Implementation of the General Law on Health in the Field of Health Research, Dec. 23, 1986; The Netherlands: Decree Amending the General Administrative Regulations on Hospital Facilities, Aug. 11, 1988 (regulating IVF laboratories and the extracorporeal production of human embryos) [Netherlands Law], reprinted in 40 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS. 400 (1989); New Zealand: Status of Children Amendment Act of 1987 [New Zealand Law]; Norway: Act No. 628 ofjune 12, 1987 Relating to Artificial Fertilization [Norwegian Law], reprinted in 38 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS. 782 (1987); Portugal: Decret Loi No. 319/86 du 25 Septembre 1986 [Portugal Decret Loi No. 319/86], reprinted in 38 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS. 784 (1987); South Africa: Regulations Regarding the Artificial Insemination of Persons, and Related Matters, Government Notice No. R.l 182 of 20 June 1986 [South African Artificial Insemination Regulations], reprinted in 41 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS. 79 (1990); Soviet Union: USSR Ministry Of Health, Decree on the Extension of the Experimental Application of the Method of Artificial Insemination by Donor on Medical Indications, No. 669 of 13 May 1987 [USSR Decree], reprinted in 40 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS. 597 (1989) (summary of statute); Spain: Loi No. 35/1988 sur les Techniques de Reproduction Assistee, J.O. No. 282 of November 24, 1988 and J.O. No. 284 of November 26, 1988 [Spanish Law], reprinted in 40 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS. 82 (1989); Sweden: Act on Insemination of 1984 [Swedish Law on Insemination], reprintedin 37 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS. 272 (1986); Regulations and General Recommendations, No. 6 of 27 March 1987 of the National Board of Health and Welfare on Insemination [Swedish Recommendations of Board of Health], reprinted in 39 INT'L DICEST OF HEALTH LEGIS. 81 (1988); in vitro Fertilization Act of 1988 (Law No. 711) (Svensk Forfattningssamling. June 22, 1988) [Swedish IVF Law], reprinted in 40 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS. 93 (1989); Switzerland: Canton de Vaud, Guidelines of the Health Council of September 15, 1986 on Human Procreation [Swiss Canton de Vaud], reprinted in 38 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS. 76 (1987); Canton de Bale, Directive of February 2, 1987 on in vitro Fertilization and Embryo Transfer for the Treatment of Human Infertility [Swiss Canton de Bale], reprinted in 39 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS. 82 (1988); United Kingdom: Surrogacy Arrangements Act of 1985 ch. 49; Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act of 1990, ch. 37 [United Kingdom Human Fertilisation Act], reprintedin 42 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS. 69 (1991); United States Of America: I I I . ANN. STAT. ch. 38, para. 81-26 (Smith-Hurd 1991); KY. REV. STAT. ANN. § 311.715 (Baldwin 1990); LA. REV. STAT. ANN. §§ 9:121-9:133 (West 1991); N.H. REV. STAT. ANN. § 168-B:10-15, 29-30 (1991); N.M. STAT. ANN. § 40-11-6 (Michie 1989); 18 PA. CONS. STAT. ANN. § 3213(e) (1983).

See also European Parliament, Resolution on the Ethical and Legal Problems of Genetic Engineering and Resolution on Artificial Insemination “in vivo” and “in vitro”, 17 O J . EUR. COMM. (NO. 96) 171-76 (1989) [European Parliament Resolution], reprinted in 40 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS. 885 (1989).

4 COUNCIL OF EUROPE REPORT, reprinted in 40 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 907.

5 This information document was the result of the work during 1985-1987 of the 21 member countries of CAHBI formerly known as the Council of Europe's ad hoc Committee of Experts on Progress in the Biomedical Sciences (now known as the Committee of Experts on Bioethics). The Committee of Ministers was unable to agree either on the contents of the draft recommendation or on the principles contained in the appendix. It decided to publish the recommendation as an information document. See also PARLIAMENTARY ASSEMBLY OF THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE, RECOMMENDATION 1100 ON THE USE OF HUMAN EMBRYOS AND FOETUSES IN SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH (1989) [COUNCIL OF EUROPE RECOMMENDATION 1100], reprintedin 40 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS. 485 (1989); PARLIAMENTARY ASSEMBLY OF THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE, RECOMMENDATION 1046 ON THE USE OF HUMAN EMBRYOS AND FOETUSES FOR DIAGNOSTIC, THERAPEUTIC, SCIENTIFIC, INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL PURPOSES (1986) [COUNCIL OF EUROPE RECOMMENDATION 1046], reprinted in 37 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS. 943 (1986); PARLIAMENTARY ASSEMBLY OF THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE, RECOMMENDATION 934 ON GENETIC ENGINEERING (1982) [COUNCIL OF EUROPE RECOMMENDATION 934]; PARLIAMENTARY ASSEMBLY OF THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE, RECOMMENDATION NO. R(90)3 ON MEDICAL RESEARCH ON HUMAN BEINGS (1990) [COUNCIL OF EUROPE RECOMMENDATION ON MEDICAL RESEARCH ON HUMAN BEINGS].

6 Address by B. Knoppers, Towards a European Convention for the Protection of Human Genetic Material, Before the Legal Affairs Committee of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (Nov. 15, 1988); B. KNOPPERS, L'ELABORATION D'UN CODE INTERNATIONAL DE CONDUITE EN MATIERE DE TECHNOLOGIES DE LA REPRODUCTION (1989) (resolutions of this report were adopted by the International Law Association, Warsaw, Poland (1988)).

7 On the issue of legal personhood, see WARNOCK COMMITTEE, REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY INTO HUMAN FERTILISATION AND EMBRYOLOGY (1.984); DEFINING HUMAN LIKE: MEDICAL, LEGAL, AND ETHICAL IMPLICATIONS 3-30 (M. Shaw & E. Doudera eds. 1983); COMITE CONSULTATIF NATIONAL D'ÉTHIQUE POUR LES SCIENCES DE LA VIE ET DE LA SANTÉ, AVIS SUR LES PROBLEMÉS ÉTHIQUES NÉS DES TECHNIQUES DE REPRODUCTION ARTIFICIELLE (1984).

8 On the moral and ethical questions, see generally THE STATUS OF THE HUMAN EMBRYO: PERSPECTIVES FROM MORAL TRADITION (G. Dunstan & M. Seller eds. 1988); Fagot-Largeault & de Parseval, Qu'est-ce q'un Embryon? Panorama des Positions Philosophiques Actuelles, 6 ESPIRIT 86 (1989); Warnock, Do Human Celts Have Rights?, 1 BIOETHICS 1 (1987).

9 See G. DURAND, QUEL AVENIR? LES ENJEUX DE LA MANIPULATION DE L'HOMME 22-31 (1978); see also Johnson, The Onset of Human Identity and its Relationship to Legislation Concerning Research on Human Embryos, 1 ETHICAL PROBLEMS IN REPRODUCTIVE MEDICINE 2 (1989) (raises the overriding question of whether infertility and genetic disease should be treated primarily in a curative or in a pastoral sense — to be circumvented or to be accepted).

10 For a particular example of the third approach, see LAW REFORM COMM'N OF CANADA, CRIMES AGAINST THE FOETUS (Working Paper 58) 33-34, 59-60 (1989) [hereinafter CRIMES AGAINST THE FOETUS].

11 Note the arguments of Johnson, supra note 9, at 6:

When the line is drawn at fertilisation, the reason given is genetic uniqueness. When the line is drawn at the primitive streak stage, the reason given is that twinning can no longer occur. When the line is drawn at viability, the reason given is the capacity to enter independently into a social relationship. All of these reasons are based on perceptions about the biological basis of individual identity which are not strictly valid.

Note also the arguments of Johnson, supra note 9, at 4: Just as anthropologists cannot define an exact and absolute point during evolutionary time when non humankind became human, so biologists cannot define any single developmental transition at which an individual with a clear identity emerges. The evolution of humankind and the development of a human identity are both continuous processes.

See also N. FORD, WHEN DID I BEGIN? (1988); McLaren, Where to Draw the Line, 56 PROC. ROYAL INST. 101 (1984).

12 J.L. BAUDOUIN & C. LABRUSSE-RIOU, PRODUIRE L'HOMME: DE QUEL DROIT? ETUDE JURIDIQUE ET ETHIQUE DES PROCREATIONS ARTIFICIELLE 206 (1987).

13 Warnock, supra note 8, at 12-13.

14 Revillard, Droit de la Procreation et Instruments Intemationaux, in 54-56 ANNUAIRE DE L'A.A.A. 169 (1984-1986). See also Torelli, La Protection Internationale de la Vie Prenatale, in LA VIE PRENATALE: BIOLOGIE, MORALE ET DROIT 169 (Actes du VIeme Colloque National des Juristes Catholiques 1985).

15 LA. REV. STAT. §§9:121-9:133 (West 1991). Denmark requires its National Ethics Council (Biomedical Research on Human Subjects) to take as a basic assumption that human life begins at the moment of fertilization. Danish Law, § 1, reprinted in 39 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 95.

16 Knoppers, supra, note 2, at 347.

17 Id. at 352-53. See also Almond, Philosophy, Medicine and its Technologies, 14 J. MED. ETHICS 173, 177 (1988) (“Formulations of an ethical position in terms of the concept of respect for life, then, may seem preferable to those put forward in terms of fixed principle, as permitting the degree of flexibility that is in fact needed here.“).

18 COUNCIL OF EUROPE REPORT, reprinted in 40 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 907.

19 See European Parliament Resolution, reprinted in 40 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 886; INSTITUT DE L'ENFANCE ET DE LA FAMILLE, LA FILIATION, RUPTURES ET CONTINUITE: ACTES DU COLLOQUE DE VAUCRESSON 26-28 JUIN 1985 (1985) [hereinafter ACTES DU COLLOQUE DE VAUCRESSON].

20 OFFICE OF TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, INFERTILITY: MEDICAL AND SOCIAL CHOICES 207- 09 (1988); ACTES DU COLLOQUE DE VAUCRESSON, supra note 19; sources cited supra notes 7 & 8. See also COUNCIL FOR SCIENCE AND SOCIETY, HUMAN PROCREATION: ETHICAL ASPECTS OF THE NEW TECHNIQUES 51 (1984); CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH, INSTRUCTION ON THE RESPECT FOR HUMAN LIFE IN ITS ORIGIN AND ON THE DIGNITY OF PROCREATION (1987); Buckle, Arguing From Potential, 2 BIOETHICS 227 (1988); Hare, When Does Potentiality Count?: A Comment on Lockwood, 2 BIOETHICS 214 (1988); Lockwood, Wamock Versus Powell (and Harradine): When Does Potentiality Count?, 2 BIOETHICS 187 (1988).

21 CRIMES AGAINST THE FOETUS, supra note 10, at 59-60; B. KNOPPERS, CONCEPTION ARTIFICIELLE ET RESPONSABILITÉ MÉDICALE: UNE ÉTUDE DE DROIT COMPARÉ 147-225 (1986).

22 McLaren, Can We Diagnose Genetic Disease in Pre-Embryos?, NEW SCIENTIST, Dec. 10, 1987, at 42; COUNCIL OF EUROPE, REPORT ON THE USE OF HUMAN FOETAL, EMBRYONIC AND PREEMBRVONIC MATERIAL FOR DIAGNOSTIC, THERAPEUTIC, SCIENTIFIC, INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL PURPOSES § 6.1-6.4 (1989).

23 See, e.g., The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights [hereinafter International Covenant], 993 U.N.T.S. 3, 6 I.L.M. 360 (1967). Adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations, Dec. 16, 1966 (Annex to G.A. Res. 2000, 21 U.N. GAOR, 14th Sess., Supp. No. 16, at 490, U.N. Doc. A/6316 (1976)). Article 15.1(b) articulates the right of everyone “[t]o enjoy the benefits of scientific progress and its applications.” States that were parties to the International Covenant undertook “to respect the freedom indispen sable for scientific research and creative activity.” International Covenant, supra, arts. 15.1(b), 15.3, 993 U.N.T.S. at 9, 6 I.L.M. at 365.

24 For an analytical study of the Nuremberg Code of 1947, see C. AMBROSELLI, QUE SAISJE? L'ETHIQUE MÉDICALE 81-116 (1988).

25 Declaration of Helsinki (1964), reprinted in 21 C.F.R. § 312.120(c)(4) (1991) (concerning recommendations guiding physicians in biomedical research involving human subjects). See also COUNCIL FOR INT'L ORG. OF MEDICAL SCIENCES, PROPOSED INTERNATIONAL GUIDELINES FOR BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH INVOLVING HUMAN SUBJECTS (1982); COUNCIL OF EUROPE RECOMMENDATION ON MEDICAL RESEARCH ON HUMAN BEINGS.

26 Fagot-Largeault & de Parseval, supra note 8.

27 Taguieff, I'Eugénisme, Objet de Phobie Ideologique, 11 ESPRIT 99, 111 (1989). See also Johnson, supra note 9, at 5 (“Society should not have an unduly romantic view of its origins nor an over optimistic view of its future based too cozily on past success.“).

28 See infra note 39 and accompanying text. It should be noted, however, that such alteration is not scientifically possible at this time.

29 See infra note 39 and accompanying text.

30 Danish Law, § 11, reprinted in 39 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 96 (moratorium on research with embryos); Norwegian Law, reprinted in 38 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 892; Spanish Law, §§ 14(4), 20(b), reprinted in 40 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 86, 90-92; Swiss Canton de Bale, § 2, reprinted in 39 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 82; United Kingdom Human Fertilisation Act, § 3(3), reprinted in 42 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 70; 45 C.F.R. § 46.204(D) (1990) (no federal funding available for research on embryos).

See also AUSTRIAN REPORT; AUSTRIAN PROJET, rec. 26; CANADIAN REPORT ON RESEARCH, at 33; CANADIAN RAPPORT DU BARREAU, rec 27; CANADIAN BAR. ASS'N RECOMMENDATIONS, rec. 11(f); MEDICAL RESEARCH COUNCIL OF CANADA, rec. 1; FRENCH RAPPORT DU CONSEIL D'ÉTAT, at 89, § 1.1.; FRENCH AVANT PROJET BRAIBANT, art. 10 (art. 1.6734) (moratorium on embryo biopsy); COMITE CONSULTATIF NATIONAL D'ÉTHIQUE, AVIS SUR LES RECHERCHES SUR L'EMBRYON SOUMISES A MORATOIRE DEPUIS 1986, ET QUI VlSENT A PERME+TRE LA RÉALISATION D'UN DIAGNOSTIC GÉNÉTIQJUE AVANT TRANSPLANTATION, 18 July 1990; ITALIAN PROPOSTA DI LEGGE N O . 3749, art. 11, al. 1; NETHERLANDS AVIS DU CONSEIL DU SANTE; SWISS RAPPORT FEDERAL; COUNCIL OF EUROPE REPORT, prins. 20, 21(l)-(2), reprinted in 40 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 912; COUNCIL OF EUROPE RÉCOMMENDATION 1046, H 14(A)(iv), reprinted in 37 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 945; European Parliament Resolution, reprinted in 40 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 886-87.

31 See, e.g, International Covenant, supra note 23, at art. 15.1(b); see also Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Dec. 10, 1948, art. 27, G.A. Res. 217A(III), U.N. Doc. A/810, reprinted in R. LILLICH & F. NEWMAN, INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS 888-94 (1979) [hereinafter Universal Declaration]; Declaration of Alma-Alta (1978), prins. 1,2; Madrid Declaration of 1987, reprinted in 39 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS. 267 (1988).

32 See COUNCIL OF EUROPE RECOMMENDATION ON MEDICAL RESEARCH ON HUMAN BEINGS; see also LAW REFORM COMM'N OF CANADA, BIOMEDICAL EXPERIMENTAION INVOLVING HUMAN SUBJECTS (Working Paper 61) (1989).

33 In contrast to the earlier recommendations of the German A.M.A. Report and of the GERMAN BENDA REPORT, which accepted certain therapeutic, clinical experimentation, the German Law, § 2, reprinted in 42 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 61, penalizes all research on human embryos and any manipulation of human genetic material (although the law does not criminalize IVF per se).

34 Danish Law, § 1 1 , reprinted in 39 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 96.

35 Norwegian Law, § 3, reprinted in 38 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 782.

36 AUSTRIAN PROJET, § 2.

37 On this particular point and for all subsequent references to in vitro fertilization in this text, see Knoppers & Sloss, supra, note 2, Annex II; see also South Australian Reproductive Technology Act § 10(3)(d), reprinted in 39 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 867; Spanish Law, art. 15(l)(b), reprinted in 40 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 87; United Kingdom Human Fertilisation Act, § 3(4), reprinted in 42 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 71; COUNCIL OF EUROPE RECOMMENDATION 1046, t 14(A)(iv), reprinted in 37 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 945.

The COUNCIL OF EUROPE REPORT, § 1(9) reprinted in 40 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 907, was in favor of a 14 day delay. The same was true of the NETHERLANDS AVIS DU CONSEIL DE SANTE, the CANADIAN RAPPORT DU BARREAU, rec. 27, and the CANADIAN BAR ASS'N RECOMMENDATIONS, rec. 11(c).

But see COMITE CONSULTATIF NATIONAL D'ÉTHIQUE POUR LES SCIENCES DE LA VIE ET DE LA SANTE, AVIS RELATIF AUX RECHERCHES SUR LES EMBRYONS HUMAINS IN VITRO ET LEUR UTILISATION A DES FINS MEDICALES ET SCIENTIFIQUES (1986) [FRENCH COMITE NATIONAL D'ÉTHIQUE REPORT], reprinted in 40 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS. 488 (1989) (recommending that the time where experimentation be possible be limited to 7 days). This limit has been incorporated in the FRENCH AVANT PROJET BRAIBANT, art. 10 (art. L.672).

38 Spanish Law, § 16(a), reprinted in 40 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 87; COUNCIL OF EUROPE RECOMMENDATION 1100, ¶ 9(B)(iv)(a)-(b), app. ¶ A(2), reprinted in 40 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 487. See also European Parliament Resolution, reprinted in 40 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 885; MEDICAL RESEARCH COUNCIL, PRESS NOTICE ON HUMAN FERTILISATION AND EMBRYOLOGY (1989) (discussing the United Kingdom bill).

39 Spanish Law, §§ 14.3, 15.2, 15.3, 16.1, reprinted in 40 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 86-88. See also COUNCIL OF EUROPE RECOMMENDATION 1100, ¶ 9(B)(iv)(c), app. ¶ B(4),(7), reprinted in 40 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 487; COUNCIL OF EUROPE RECOMMENDATION 934, ¶ 4(i), (iii); COUNCIL OF EUROPE RECOMMENDATION ON MEDICAL RESEARCH ON HUMAN BEINGS. ‘

Note that national commissions in Canada, the United States, Germany and Switzerland have approved the possibility of genetic diagnosis and, when possible, somatic cell therapy: MEDICAL RESEARCH COUNCIL OF CANADA REPORT, r e e l ; PRESIDENT's COMM'N FOR THE STUDY OF ETHICAL PROBLEMS IN MEDICINE AND BIOMEDICAL AND BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH, SPLICING LIFE: A REPORT ON THE SOCIAL AND ETHICAL ISSUES OF GENETIC ENGINEERING WITH HUMAN BEINGS 42-47 (1982). See also WASHINGTON COMMISSION, SCREENING AND COUNSELLING FOR GENETIC CONDITIONS; Statement on Gene Therapy by the European Medical Research Councils of Austria, Denmark, Finland, France, The Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom and West Germany, 1 LANCET 1271, 1272 (“Only somatic cell gene therapy resulting in nonheritable changes to particular body tissues should be contemplated. Germline therapy, for the introduction of heritable genetic modifications, is not acceptable.“); COMMISSION D'EXPERTS POUR LA GENETIQUE HUMAINE ET LA MEDECINE DE LA REPRODUCTION, RAPPORT AU DEP't FED. DE L'INTERIEUR ET AU DEP't FED. DE LA JUSTICE ET POLICE 96-97 (Somatic cell therapy should be limited to cases of grave hereditary disorders only. Genetic therapy (germline) on gametes or embryos is to be prohibited as well as all non-therapeutic genetic manipulations on the human person). The opinion of this Commission is particularly interesting as it is based on the Council of Europe's equation between the right to dignity and the inheritance of a genetic pattern. COUNCIL OF EUROPE RECOMMENDATION 934, H 4(i).

The GERMAN BENDA REPORT considered somatic cell therapy to still be in the early experimental stages and thus subject to the mandatory rules/protocols on human experimentation. Since germline research would involve the use of embryos and their possible destruction in experiments, it was not justified. The Commission recommended the prohibition of any germline experiments or treatments. This position was reaffirmed in the report of the German Enqucte Commission. An Extract from Prospects and Risks of Gene Technology: The Report of the Enquele Commission to the Bundestag of the Federal Republic of West Germany, 2 BIOETHICS 254 (1988). This Commission accepted the philosophical base of the natural development of human beings as the core of their humanity and would totally prohibit even therapeutic experimentation on the human germline. Id. at 261. See also German Law, § 5, reprinted in 42 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 61-62 (totally prohibiting therapeutic experimentation on the human germline).

But see FRENCH RAPPORT DU CONSEIL D'ETAT, at 84 (all germline therapy alterations should be prohibited and genetic diagnosis of preimplantation embryos through the method of embryo biopsy should be prohibited). See also Danish Law, § 1 1 , reprinted in 39 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 96 (while awaiting more specific legislation); FRENCH COMITE NATIONAL D'ETHIQUE REPORT, reprinted in 40 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS. 488 (1989); COMITE CONSALTATIF NATIONAL D'ETHIQUE, AVIS SUR LA THERAPIE GENIQUE, 13 December 1990, at 2.

40 French Loi du 20 Décembre 1988, art. 209.12, reprinted in 40 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 112; Norwegian Law, rec. 7, reprinted in 38 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 783; Spanish Law, §§ 15.1(c), 16.3, reprinted in 40 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 87, 88; United Kingdom Human Fertilisation Act, § 9, reprinted in 42 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 76. See also AUSTRIAN REPORT, rec. 27; CANADIAN REPORT ON RESEARCH, at 33; CANADIAN RAPPORT DU BARREAU, rec. 27; CANADIAN AVIS DU CONSEIL DU STATUT DE LA FEMME, rec. 65; MEDICAL RESEARCH COUNCIL OF CANADA REPORT, recs. 5, 6; FRENCH RAPPORT DU CONSEIL D'ETAT, rec. 6, at 89; FRENCH AVANT PROJET BRAIBANT, art. 5; NETHERLANDS AVIS DU CONSEIL DE SANTE; UNITED KINGDOM LICENSING REPORT, § 5, reprinted in 38 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 404; UNITED KINGDOM GUIDELINES, reprinted in 40 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 901-03; COUNCIL OF EUROPE REPORT, prin. 17.2.d, reprinted in 40 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 911; COUNCIL OF EUROPE RECOMMENDATION ON MEDICAL RESEARCH ON HUMAN BEINGS.

41 South Australian Reproductive Technology Act, § 14(1), reprinted in 39 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 869; French Loi du 20 Decembre 1988, art. 209.18, reprinted in 40 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 113; Spanish Law, §§ 18, 19, reprinted in 40 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 89-90; United Kingdom Human Fertilisation Act, sched. 2, reprinted in 42 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 81-83; COUNCIL OF EUROPE RECOMMENDATION 1046, app. f B(iv)(b), reprinted in 37 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 947; COUNCIL OF EUROPE RECOMMENDATION 1100, t 9(B), reprinted in 40 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 487. See also CANADIAN RAPPORT SUR LES NOUVELLES TECHNOLOGIES, rec. 64; CANADIAN AVIS DU CONSEIL DU STATUT DE LA FEMME, rec. 6.2; CANADIAN BAR ASS'N RECOMMENDATIONS, rec. 11(e); FRENCH RAPPORT DU CONSEIL D'ETAT, rec. 3, at 89.

42 South Australian Reproductive Technology Act, § 14 (4), reprinted in 39 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 870; Danish Law, § 12, reprinted in 39 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 97; German Law, reprinted in 42 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 60; Spanish Law § 20.B, reprinted in 40 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 90-92; United Kingdom Human Fertilisation Act, § 4, reprinted in 42 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 80; COUNCIL OF EUROPE RECOMMENDATION 1100, app. H 11, reprinted in 40 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 487.

See also AUSTRIAN PROJET, art. 12; FRENCH AVANT PROJET BRAIBANT, art. 10 (art. L. 676-3); ITALIAN PROPOSTA DI LEGGE NO. 3749, art. 12; European Parliament Resolution, art. 28, reprinted in 40 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 886; COUNCIL OF EUROPE RECOMMENDATION ON MEDICAL RESEARCH ON HUMAN BEINGS.

43 The World Health Organization defines health as “a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being.” CONSTITUTION DE ^ORGANISATION MANPIALE DE LA SANTE preamble (1946).

44 See, e.g., Universal Declaration, supra note 31, at art. 25(1); International Covenant, supra note 23, at art. 12; see also Convention on the Rights of the Child, Dec. 5, 1989, art. 24, U.N. Doc. A/RES/44/25, 28 I.L.M. 1454, 1465 [hereinafter Convention on Rights of the Child].

45 International Covenant, supra note 23, at art. 12(1); Universal Declaration, supra note 31, at art. 25; Convention on Rights of the Child, supra note 44, at art. 24.

46 South Australian Reproductive Technology Act, § 13(1), reprintedin 39 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 868; Bulgarian Ordinance, § 3(1), reprinted in 41 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 75; French Decret No. 88-327, § 2, reprinted in 39 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 645-47; French Decret No. 88-328, art. 1, reprinted in 39 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 647 (summary of statute); Arrete du 20 Septembre 1988 Fixant Indice des Besoins Relatifs aux Activites de Procreation Medicalement Assistee, § 1, reprinted in 40 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS. 35 (1989); Israel IVF Regulation, § 2, reprinted in 38 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 780; Norwegian Law, § 2, reprinted in 38 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 782; Portugal Decret Loi No. 319/86, § 1(1), reprintedin 38 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 784; USSR Decree, § 3, reprinted in 40 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 597 (summary of statute); USSR Decree No. 669 of 13 May 1987, Annex 1, reprinted in 40 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 597 (summary of statute); Spanish Law, § 18, reprinted in 40 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 89; Swedish Law, § 3, reprinted in 40 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 93; Swiss Canton de Vaud, rec. 5, reprinted in 38 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 77; United Kingdom Human Fertilisation Act, §§ 11-15, reprinted in 42 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 72-74.

See also BELGIAN PROPOSITION, art. 1; CANADIAN RAPPORT SUR LES NOUVELLES TECHNOLOGIES, recs. 9, 64; CANADIAN AVIS DU CONSEIL DU STATUT DE LA FEMME, recs. 2.2, 6.2; FRENCH RAPPORT DU CONSEIL D'ETAT, rec. 9, at 63; FRENCH AVANT PROJET BRAIBANT, art. 10 (art. L.668-2 al. 2); German A.M.A. Report; ITALIAN PROPOSTA DI LEGGE NO. 3749, art. 2; NETHERLANDS AVIS DU CONSEIL DE SANTE; GROUPE DE TRAVAIL INTERMINISTERIEL, PROPOSITION DE LOI SUR L'INSEMINATION ARTIFICIELLE ET SUR LA FECONDATION A L'EXTERIEUR DU CORPS (1986) [OSLO REPORT], § 9; SWISS DIRECTIVES, rec. 2; COUNCIL OF EUROPE REPORT, prin. 2, reprintedin 40 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 908.

47 Bulgarian Ordinance, § 16, reprinted in 41 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 75; French Decret No. 88-327, §§4, 5, reprinted in 39 INT'L DICEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 646; Spanish Law, § 19(1), reprintedin 40 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 89; Swedish Law on Insemination, § 3, ¶ 1, reprinted in 37 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 272. See also AUSTRIAN REPORT, rec. 16; ITALIAN MINISTERIAL COMM'N REPORT, art. 12; ITALIAN PROPOSTA DI LEGGE NO. 3749, art. 5; Swiss DIRECTIVES, rec. 2; UNITED KINGDOM LICENSING REPORT, §§ 12(c), 13(c), reprinted in 38 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 405; COUNCIL OF EUROPE REPORT, prin. 2, reprinted in 40 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 908-09.

48 AUSTRIAN PROJET, art. 1; CANADIAN AVIS DU CONSEIL DU STATUT DE LA FEMME, rec. 6.5.

49 South Australian Reproductive Technology Act, Part II, divs. I, II, reprinted in 39 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 866; Czechoslovakian Binding Instruction, art. 6(3); Danish Law, § 1, reprinted in 39 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 95; French Decret No. 88-327, § 1, reprinted in 39 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 646; Spanish Law, § 21(1), reprinted in 40 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 92; Swiss Canton de Vaud, rec. 5, reprinted in 38 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 77; United Kingdom Human Fertilisation Act, §§ 5, 9, reprintedin 42 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 71 (summary of statute). See also AUSTRIAN REPORT, rec. 27; BELGIAN PROPOSITION, art. 1; CANADIAN AVIS DU CONSEIL DU STATUT DE LA FEMME, rec. 6.1; German A.M.A. Report; ITALIAN PROPOSTA DI LEGGE NO. 3749, arts. 2.1, 2.2; NETHERLANDS AVIS DU CONSEIL DE SANTE; ITALIAN MINISTERIAL COMM'N REPORT, art. 6; Swiss Directives, rec. 2; UNITED KINGDOM LICENSING REPORT, recs. 12(a), 13(a), reprintedin 38 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 405; COUNCIL OF EUROPE REPORT, prin. 2, reprinted in 40 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 908.

50 Danish Law, § 7, reprinted in 39 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 109; French Decret No. 88-327, arts. 5, 6, reprinted in 39 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 646-47; Israel IVF Regulation, § 9, reprinted in 38 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 781; Norwegian Law, § 3, reprintedin 38 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 783; Portugal Decret Loi No. 319/86, § 1(1), reprinted in 38 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 784; South African Artificial Insemination Regulations, § 6(2)(f), reprinted in 41 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 79; USSR Decree, § 3, reprinted in 40 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 597 (summary of statute); Spanish Law, §§ 1 l(l)-(4), 18, reprinted in 40 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 85; Swedish Recommendations of Board of Health, §§ 2, 3, reprinted in 39 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 81 (addresses only sperm, not eggs); Swiss Canton de Vaud, § 7, reprinted in 38 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 77; United Kingdom Human Fertilisation Act, § 14, reprinted in 42 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 73.

See also AUSTRIAN REPORT, note 12; CANADIAN RAPPORT DU BARREAU, recs. 7, 19; CANADIAN RAPPORT SUR LES NOUVELLES TECHNOLOGIES, recs. 45, 46, 47; CANADIAN BAR ASS'N RECOMMENDATIONS, rec. 6; CANADIAN AVIS DU CONSEIL DU STATUT DE LA FEMME, rec. 3.4; FRENCH AVANT PROJET BRAIBANT, art. 10 (art. L.668-2 al. 2); GERMAN BENDA REPORT, at 44; ITALIAN PROPOSTA DI LEGGE NO. 3749, art. 8 al. 2; ITALIAN MINISTERIAL COMM'N REPORT, art. 8; NETHERLANDS AVIS DU CONSEIL DE SANTE; FRENCH RAPPORT DU CONSEIL D'ETAT, recs. 22, 23, at 64; UNITED KINGDOM LICENSING REPORT, recs. 5, 10, reprinted in 38 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 404-05, COUNCIL OF EUROPE REPORT, prin. 7, reprinted in 40 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 910.

51 See Knoppers & Sloss, supra note 2, at 673-74 (citing 2 ONTARIO LAW REFORM COMM'N REPORT ON HUMAN ARTICIAL REPRODUCTION AND RELATED MATTERS 275 rec. 4 (1985) [hereinafter 2 ONTARIO LAW REFORM COMM'N REPORT]; NEW SOUTH WALES LAW REFORM COMM'N REPORT ON ARTICIAL CONCEPTION: HUMAN ARTIFICAL INSEMINATION rec. 1, H 4.6 (1986)).

52 See Knoppers, L'Arbitragedu me'decin Face aux Normesregissant la Fe'condation “in vitro”, in C. BYK, PROCREATION ARTIFICIELLE, OU EN SONT L'ETHIQUE ET LE DROIT? UNE CONTRIBUTION MULTIDISCIPLINAIRE ET INTERNATIONALE 49 (1989).

53 Bulgarian Ordinance, § 2, reprinted in 41 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 72; Norwegian Law, § 5, reprinted in 38 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 783; Spanish Law, § 1(2), reprinted in 40 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 82. See also CANADIAN RAPPORT DU BARREAU, rec. 3; CANADIAN RAPPORT SUR LES NOUVELLES TECHNOLOGIES, rec. 1; CANADIAN AVIS DU CONSEIL DU STATUT DE LA FEMME, rec. 31; FRENCH RAPPORT DU CONSEIL D'ETAT, rec. 8, at 63; FRENCH AVANT PROJET BRAIBANT, art. 10 (art. L.668-6(2); IRISH IVF GUIDELINES, rec. 4.

54 Bulgarian Ordinance, §§ 16, 17, reprinted in 41 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 75; French Decret No. 88-327, § 3, reprinted in 39 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 645; German Law, § 9, reprinted in 42 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 63; Israel IVF Regulation, § 4(2), reprinted in 38 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 783; Norwegian Law, § 5, reprinted in 38 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 782; Portugal Decret Loi No. 319/86, § 1, reprinted in 38 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 784; South African Artificial Insemination Regulations, § 9, reprinted in 41 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 79; Spanish Law, § 1(1), reprinted in 40 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 82. See also CANADIAN BAR ASS'N RECOMMENDATIONS, rec. 5; FRENCH RAPPORT DU CONSEIL D'ETAT, rec. 8, at 63; FRENCH AVANT PROJET BRAIBANT, art. 10 (L668-2, al. 1); IRISH IVF GUIDELINES, rec. 4.

55 South Australian Reproductive Technology Act, § 10(2), reprinted in 39 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 867; Bulgarian Ordinance, § 9, reprinted in 41 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 73-74; USSR Decree, Annex 3, reprinted in 40 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 597-98 (summary of statute); Spanish Law, § 2(l)(b), reprinted in 40 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 82. See also CANADIAN RAPPORT DU BARREAU, rec. 3; CANADIAN BAR ASS'N RECOMMENDATIONS, rec. 7; FRENCH RAPPORT DU CONSEIL D'ETAT.

56 South Australian Reproductive Technology Act, § 13(3)-(4), reprinted in 39 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 868; Swedish Law, § 2, reprinted in 40 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 93. See also Canadian Prqjet, art. 579; CANADIAN RAPPORT SUR LES NOUVELLES TECHNOLOGIES, rec. 11; CANADIAN BAR ASS'N RECOMMENDATIONS, rec. 3; FRENCH RAPPORT DU CONSEIL D'ETAT, rec. 50, at 65; FRENCH AVANT PROJET BRAIBANT, art. 10 (art. L.668-10 al. 29); SWISS RAPPORT FEDERAL, at 62; COUNCIL OF EUROPE REPORT, prin. 1.1, reprinted in 40 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 908.

57 Hungarian Ordinance, § 1(1), reprinted in 41 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 76; Norwegian Law, § 4, reprinted in 38 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 783; South African Artificial Insemination Regulations, § 8(1), reprinted in 41 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 79. See also IRISH IVF GUIDELINES, rec. 1.

For laws permitting access to single women, see Spanish Law, § 2(l)(b), reprinted in 40 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 82; see also Knoppers & Sloss, supra note 2, at 679 (citing SASKATCHEWAN LAW REFORM COMM'N, TENTATIVE PROPOSALS FOR A HUMAN ARTIFICIAL INSEMINATION ACT rec. l(2)-(5) (1981)). Note also that single women are not expressly excluded in Canada. CANADIAN RAPPORT DU BARREAU.

58 Hungarian Ordinance, § 1(1), reprinted in 41 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 75-76; Norwegian Law, § 5, reprinted in 38 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 783; South African Artificial Insemination Regulations, § 9(e)(i)-(ii), reprinted in 41 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 80; USSR Decree, Annex 3, reprinted in 40 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 597-98 (summary of statute); Swedish Law on Insemination, § 3, reprinted in 37 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 272; Swedish Recommendations of Board of Health, § 4, reprinted in 39 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 81. See also CANADIAN RAPPORT SUR LES NOUVELLES TECHNOLOGIES, rec. 39; GERMAN BENDA REPORT, at 18. For the view that the goal is to ensure in some way “parental capacity,” see ITALIAN MINISTERIAL COMM'N REPORT, art. 2; SWISS DIRECTIVES, rec. 3.

For the view that the goal is to secure the “best interests of the child,” see LE CONSEIL NATIONAL DE L'ORDRE DES MEDECINS, REGLES DEONTOLOGIQUES APPLICABLES AUX TECHNIQUES DE PROCREATION MEDICALEMENT ASSISTEE (1986) [FRENCH CONSEIL NATIONAL DE L'ORDRE DES MEDECINS REPORT], prin. 3; COMITE CONSALTATIF NATIONAL D'ETHIQUE, AVIS SUR LES PROBLEMES ETHIQUES NES DES TECHNIQUES DE PROCREATION ASSISTEE (1984); GERMAN BENDA REPORT, at 11; ITALIAN MINISTERIAL COMM'N REPORT, art. 12; COUNCIL OF EUROPE REPORT, prin. 4, reprinted in 40 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 909.

59 See, e.g., Universal Declaration supra note 31, at art. 2; International Covenant, supra note 23, at art. 2.2; Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Nov. 4, 1950, art. 14, 213 U.N.T.S. 221, 232. For those laws that do not require marital status, see Israel IVF Regulations, § 8(b), reprinted in 38 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 780; Spanish Law, § 6(1), reprinted in 40 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 84; Knoppers & Sloss, supra note 2, at 680 n.48 (citing 2 ONTARIO LAW REFORM COMM'N REPORT, supra note 51, at 275 rec. 5).

60 Czechoslovakian Binding Instruction, art. 4(1); Israel IVF Regulations, §§ 6, 7, 14(b), reprinted in 38 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 780, 782; New Zealand Law, §§ 5(l)(a), 7(l)(a); Norwegian Law, § 4, reprinted in 38 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 783; South African Artificial Insemination Regulations, § 8(1), reprinted in 41 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 79; USSR Decree, Annex 3, reprinted in 40 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 597-98 (summary of statute); Spanish Law, § 6(3), reprinted in 40 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 84; Swedish Law on Insemination, § 2, reprinted in 37 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 272; Swedish IVF Law, § 2(2), reprinted in 40 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 93; Swedish Recommendations of Board of Health, § 1, reprinted in 39 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 81; Swiss Canton de Vaud, § 2, reprinted in 38 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 76; United Kingdom Human Fertilisation Act, § 28(2), reprinted in 42 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 77-78.

See also AUSTRIAN REPORT, rec. 7; CANADIAN RAPPORT DU BARREAU, rec. 5; CANADIAN RAPPORT SUR LES NOUVELLES TECHNOLOGIES, rec. 33; CANADIAN AVIS DU CONSEIL DU STATUT DE LA FEMME, rec. 2.4; FRENCH RAPPORT DU CONSEIL D'ETAT, rec. 6, at 63, rec. 50; FRENCH AVANT PROJET BRAIBANT, art. 10 (art. L668-11); GERMAN BENDA REPORT, at 26; ITALIAN PROPOSTA DI LEGGE NO. 3749, art. 3; IRISH IVF GUIDELINES, rec. 1; OSLO REPORT, § 2; SWISS RAPPORT FEDERAL, at 64; COUNCIL OF EUROPE REPORT, prin. 4.1, reprinted in 40 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 909.

61 Norwegian Law, § 15(2), reprinted in 38 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 784; Spanish Law, § 8(1), reprinted in 40 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 85; Institut Suisse, art. 253.3, Civil Code (Loi du 25 Juin 1975); United Kingdom Human Fertilisation Act, §§ 27, 28, reprinted in 42 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 77-78. See also AUSTRIAN REPORT, rec. 7; Canadian Projet, arts. 580 al. 2, 581; CANADIAN RAPPORT DU BARREAU, rec. 11; CANADIAN RAPPORT SUR LES NOUVELLES TECHNOLOGIES, rec. 34; French Rapport du Conseil d'Etat, recs. 40, 41, at 66; FRENCH AVANT PROJET BRAIBANT, art. 11 (art. 342-10 al. 1); ITALIAN PROPOSTA DI LEGGE NO. 3749, art. 4 al. 6; NETHERLANDS AVIS DU CONSEIL DE SANTE; OSLO REPORT § 9; Swiss RAPPORT FEDERAL, at 63; COUNCIL OF EUROPE REPORT, prin. 14.2(a)-(c), reprinted in 40 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 910-11.

Note that in the absence of legislation, despite consent given at insemination, paternity may be disavowed or contested within certain time limits in Germany (following a decision of the Supreme Court on April 7, 1983) and in France (following a decision of the Nice court on June 30, 1976).

62 South Australian Reproductive Technology Act, § 13(3)(b), reprinted in 39 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 868; Bulgarian Ordinance, §§7, 8, reprinted in 41 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 73; Czechoslovakian Binding Instruction, art. 2(2); Hungarian Ordinance, § 1(1), reprinted in 41 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 76; Israel IVF Regulations, § 4(l)-(2), reprinted in 38 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 780; Norwegian Law, ch. II, § 8 & ch. Ill, § 12, reprinted in 38 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 783-84; USSR Decree, reprinted in 40 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 597 (summary of statute); Spanish Law, § l(2)-(3), reprinted in 40 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 82; Swiss Canton de Vaud, art. 2, reprinted in 38 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 76.

See also AUSTRIAN REPORT, rec. 1; CANADIAN RAPPORT SUR LES NOUVELLE TECHNOLOGIES, recs. 11, 38; CANADIAN AVIS DU CONSEIL DU STATUT DE LA FEMME, rec. 2.1; FRENCH CONSEIL NATIONAL DE L'ORDRE DES MEDECINS REPORT, prin. 1; COMITE CONSULTATIF NATIONAL D'ETHIQJUE, AVIS RELATIF AUX RECHERCHES SUR LES EMBRYONS HUMAIN IN VITRO ET LEUR UTILISATION A DES FINS MEDICALES ET SCIENTIFIQUES 4-5 (1986); FRENCH AVANT PROJET BRAIBANT, art. 10 (art. L.668-10 al. 2); German A.M.A. Report; GERMAN BENDA REPORT, at 18; ITALIAN PROPOSTA DI LEGGE NO. 3749, art. 7; NETHERLANDS AVIS DU CONSEIL DE SANTE; SWISS DIRECTIVES, rec. 1; COUNCIL OF EUROPE REPORT, prin. 1.1(a), reprinted in 40 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 908.

63 Knoppers, supra note 2, at 348. See also P. SIEGHART, THE LAWFUL RIGHTS OF MANKIND 146 (1986):

[M]any matters which would have been regarded as infringements of the ‘liberties of the subject’ in the eighteenth century … are perceived in our time as infringements of privacy, the word ‘liberty’ being nowadays more narrowly confined to physical freedom from arrest, imprisonment, or other restrictions on free movement[;] id. at 147 (“[Under] … the European Convention … the right of privacy [has developed] into an important adjunct for the protection of the other convention rights … .“). See generally P. SIEGHART, THE INTERNATIONAL LAW OF HUMAN RIGHTS (1985).

64 See generally T. BEAUCHAMP & J. CHILDRESS, PRINCIPLES OF BIOMEDICAL ETHICS (3d ed. 1989). For its particular application to human genetics, see generally ETHICS AND HUMAN GENETICS: A CROSS-CULTURAL PERSPECTIVE (D. Wertz & J. Fletcher eds. 1989) [hereinafter ETHICS AND HUMAN GENETICS].

65 See generally T. BEAUCHAMP & J. CHILDRESS, supra note 64; ETHICS AND HUMAN GENETICS, supra note 64. See also Knoppers, Virile’ et Information de la Personne, 18 REVUE GENERALE DE DROIT 819, 839-40 (1987).

66 But see Bulgarian Ordinance, reprinted in 41 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 73-75; South African Artificial Insemination Regulations, § 4(a), reprinted in 41 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 79; Spanish Law, § 5(5), reprinted in 40 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 83; United Kingdom Human Fertilisation Act, § 31, reprinted in 42 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 78; see also CANADIAN BAR ASS'N RECOMMENDATIONS, rec. 8; FRENCH AVANT PROJET BRAIBANT, art. 12 (art. 49); Swiss RAPPORT FEDERAL, at 74.

67 South Australian Reproductive Technology Act, § 13(3)(d), reprinted in 39 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 868; South African Artificial Insemination Regulations, §§ 9(a)-(d), 12(1), reprinted in 41 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 79-81; Spanish Law, § 2(5), reprinted in 40 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 83; Swedish Law on Insemination, § 3, reprinted in 37 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 273; Swedish Recommendations of Board of Health, § 6, reprinted in 39 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 81. See also AUSTRIAN REPORT, rec. 8; CANADIAN RAPPORT SUR LES NOUVELLES TECHNOLOGIES, rec. 27; CANADIAN AVIS DU CONSEIL DU STATUT DE LA FEMME, rec. 3.3; FRENCH RAPPORT DU CONSEIL D'ETAT, rec. 15; FRENCH AVANT PROJET BRAIBANT, art. 11 (art. 49); GERMAN BENDA REPORT, at 27; ITALIAN PROPOSTA DI LEGGE NO. 3749, art. 5; NETHERLANDS AVIS DU CONSEIL DE SANTE; SWISS DIRECTIVES, rec. 2; UNITED KINGDOM LICENSING REPORT, guidelines 12(b), 13(b), reprinted in 38 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 405; COUNCIL OF EUROPE REPORT, prin. 6, reprinted in 40 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 909.

68 South Australian Reproductive Technology Act, § 18 (1), reprinted in 39 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 870; Bulgarian Ordinance, § 17(2)-(3), reprinted in 41 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 75; Czechoslovakian Binding Instruction, art. 5(2); Israel IVF Regulation, § 15, reprinted in 38 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 782; South African Artificial Insemination Regulations, § 6(2)(d)-(e), reprinted in 41 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 78; Spanish Law, § 5.5, reprinted in 40 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at. 83-84; Swiss Canton de Vaud, § 4, reprinted in 38 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 76-77.

See also AUSTRIAN REPORT, recs. 7, 8; CANADIAN RAPPORT DU BARREAU, rec. 15; CANADIAN RAPPORT SUR LES NOUVELLES TECHNOLOGIES, rec. 30; CANADIAN BAR ASS'N RECOMMENDATIONS, rec. 8; FRENCH RAPPORT DU CONSEIL D'ETAT, rec. 16; FRENCH AVANT PROJET BRAIBANT, art. 10 (art. L.668-8); ITALIAN MINISTERIAL COMM'N REPORT, art. 29; NETHERLANDS AVIS DU CONSEIL DE SANTE; NEW ZEALAND PALMER REPORT, res. 1.27; OSLO REPORT, § 6; COUNCIL OF EUROPE REPORT, prin. 13(1), reprinted in 40 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 910.

69 Swedish Law on Insemination, § 4, reprinted in 37 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 273; Swedish Recommendations of Board of Health, § 2, reprinted in 39 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 81 (when the child is sufficiently mature). But see Bygdeman, Swedish Law Concerning Insemination, IPPF MEDICAL BULLETIN, Oct. 1989, at 3 (discussing the decline in both the number of donors and the number of couples choosing A.I.D. treatment following the enactment of this law).

70 CANADIAN AVIS DU CONSEIL DU STATUT DE LA FEMME, rec. 2.8; GERMAN BENDA REPORT, at 27, 28, 29 (at 16 years).

71 South Australian Reproductive Technology Act, § 18, reprinted in 39 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 870; Bulgarian Ordinance, § 17(2)-(3), reprinted in 41 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 75; Israel IVF Regulations, § 15, reprinted in 38 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 782; South African Artificial Insemination Regulations, § 6(2)(e), reprinted in 41 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 78; Spanish Law, § 5(5), reprinted in 40 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 83-84 (conceivably, the courts could override donor anonymity when the life or health of the child or donor are in jeopardy since the right to life is a fundamental right); United Kingdom Human Fertilisation Act, § 31, reprinted in 42 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 78-79.

See also AUSTRIAN REPORT, rec. 8; Canadian Projet, art. 583 al. 1; CANADIAN BAR ASS'N RECOMMENDATIONS, rec. 9; FRENCH RAPPORT DU CONSEIL D'ETAT, rec. 16; FRENCH AVANT PROJET BRAIBANT, art. 11 (art. 51); ITALIAN MINISTERIAL COMM'N REPORT, art. 14; NEW ZEALAND PALMER REPORT.

72 South African Artificial Insemination Regulations, § 2(e), reprinted in 41 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 78; Spanish Law, § 5(5), reprinted in 40 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 83-84; Swedish Recommendations of Board of Health, § 2, reprinted in 39 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 81; United Kingdom Human Fertilisation Act, § 31, reprinted in 42 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 78-79. See also AUSTRIAN REPORT, rec. 8; Canadian Projet, art. 583 al.2; CANADIAN RAPPORT SUR LES NOUVELLES TECHNOLOGIES, rec. 28 (for children under 14 years); CANADIAN AVIS DU CONSEIL DU STATUT DE LA FEMME, rec. 2.9; NEW ZEALAND PALMER REPORT, rec. 1.42; Swiss RAPPORT FEDERAL, at 79; COUNCIL OF EUROPE REPORT, prin. 13(1), reprinted in 40 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 910.

73 Harichaux, Le Corps et Us Produits du Corps, in BIOETHIQUE ET DROIT 107 (R. DraV & M. Harichaux eds. 1988) [hereinafter BIOETHIQUE ET DROIT]. See also Andrews, DNA Testing, Banking and Individual Rights, in GENETIC SCREENINC: FROM NEWBORNS TO DNA TYPING 217 (B. Knoppers & C. Laberge eds. 1990); Knoppers & Laberge, DNA Sampling and Informed Consent, 140 CAN. MED. ASS'NJ. 1023 (1989).

74 South Australian Reproductive Technology Act, § 3(b), reprinted in 39 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 866; United Kingdom Human Fertilisation Act, §§ 27, 28, reprinted in 42 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 77-78. See also AUSTRIAN REPORT, rec. 20; CANADIAN REPORT ON RESEARCH, at 32; CANADIAN RAPPORT DU BARREAU, rec. 23; CANADIAN RAPPORT SUR LES NOUVELLES TECHNOLOGIES, rec. 47; FRENCH RAPPORT DU CONSEIL D'ETAT, recs. 21-24; FRENCH AVANT PROJET BRAIBANT, art. 10 (L.668-12); GERMAN BENDA REPORT, at 18; NETHERLANDS AVIS DU CONSEIL DE SANTE; SWISS DIRECTIVES, rec. 9; UNITED KINGDOM LICENSING REPORT, guideline 5; COUNCIL OF EUROPE REPORT, prins. 4, 9.3 reprinted in 40 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 909-10.

75 See Robertson, Resolving Disputes Over Frozen Embryos, HASTINGS CENTER REPORT, Dec. 1989, at 7 (discussing the contradictory American case law on the issue).

76 See Annas & Elias, The Treatment of Infertility: Legal and Ethical Concerns, 32 CLINICAL OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY 614 (1989); J. BAUDOUIN & C. LABRUSSE-RIOU, supra note 12; Fagot-Largeault & de Parseval, supra note 8; see also D. ROY & M. DE WACHTER, THE LIFE TECHNOLOGIES AND PUBLIC POLICY 1-59 (1986).

77 South Australian Reproductive Technology Act, § 10(3)(c), reprinted in 39 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 867 (no more than 10 years); Israel IVF Regulations, § 9(a), reprinted in 38 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 781 (no more than five years); Norwegian Law, § 3, reprinted in 38 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 783 (no more than one year); Spanish Law, § 11(1), (3), reprinted in 40 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 85 (no more than five years); United Kingdom Human Fertilisation Act, § 14(3)-(5), reprinted in 42 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 74 (no more than 10 years).

See also AUSTRIAN REPORT, rec. 22; CANADIAN RAPPORT DU BARREAU, rec. 9; CANADIAN RAPPORT SUR LES NOUVELLES TECHNOLOGIES, rec. 45; CANADIAN BAR ASS'N RECOMMENDATIONS, rec. 11(g); FRENCH RAPPORT DU CONSEIL D'ETAT, rec. 22; FRENCH AVANT PROJET BRAIBANT, art. 10 (art. L 670); GERMAN BENDA REPORT, at 44; ITALIAN PROPOSTA DI LEGGE NO. 3749, art. 8, al. 3; UNITED KINGDOM LICENSING REPORT, guideline 8, reprinted in 38 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 404 (no more than 10 years); COUNCIL OF EUROPE REPORT, prins. 7.2, 8.2, reprinted in 40 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 909 (period to be fixed by legislature or by other appropriate means).

78 Israel IVF Regulations, § 10(a), reprinted in 38 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 781 (“an ovum that has been removed from a woman who has died shall not be used“).

79 Knoppers, supra note 2, at 345. See also Davis v. Davis, No. E-14496, 1989 Tenn. App. LEXIS 641 (Sept. 21, 1989) (concerning the disposition of seven frozen embryos upon divorce); Annas, A French Homonculuis in a Tennessee Court, HASTINGS CENTER REPORT, Dec. 1989, at 20; Embryos Have Their Day in Court, HOSPITAL ETHICS, Nov./Dec. 1989, at 2; Divorced Couple is Awarded Joint Custody of 7 Embryos, N.Y. Times, Sept. 14, 1990, at A20, col. 1; New Birth Technology Leaves Legal Void, Boston Globe, Jan. 30, 1990, at 1.

80 USSR Decree, Annex 3, reprinted in 40 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 597 (summary of statute); United Kingdom Human Fertilisation Act, reprinted in 42 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 83-85. See also CANADIAN RAPPORT SUR LES NOUVELLES TECHNOLOGIES, rec. 48.

81 USSR Decree, Annex 3, reprinted in 40 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 597 (summary of statute); Spanish Law, § 11 (4), reprinted in 40 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 85; United Kingdom Human Fertilisation Act, reprinted in 42 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 74. See also CANADIAN RAPPORT SUR LES NOUVELLES TECHNOLOGIES, rec. 48; FRENCH RAPPORT DU CONSEIL D'ETAT; NETHERLANDS AVIS DU CONSEIL DE SANTE.

82 CANADIAN RAPPORT DU BARREAU, rec. 9; FRENCH AVANT PROJET BRAIBANT, art. 10 (art. L. 670); ITALIAN PROPOSTA DI LEGGE NO. 3749.

83 Knoppers, supra note 2, at 345.

84 Civil law countries are often opposed to post-mortem insemination. German Law, § 4(1)(3), reprinted in 42 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 61; Swiss Canton de Vaud, guideline 4, reprinted in 38 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 76-77. See also AUSTRIAN REPORT, rec. 5; CANADIAN RAPPORT DU BARREAU, rec. 6; CANADIAN RAPPORT SUR LES NOUVELLES TECHNOLOGIES, rec. 35 (distinguishes between post mortem conjugal artificial insemination — prohibited — and donor artificial insemination — acceptable); FRENCH RAPPORT DU CONSEIL D'ETAT; rec. 45, at 67; FRENCH AVANT PROJET BRAIBANT, art. 10 (art. L. 668-3); Swiss RAPPORT FEDERAL, at 68. Common-law countries are more open to this possibility.

85 Israel IVF Regulations, § 8(b)(2), reprinted in 38 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 781 (if the husband dies before the reimplantation of the fertilized ovum, the reimplantation is possible, subject to the condition that at least one year has passed between the time of the removal of the ovum and its fertilization).

As to implicit consent, see Parpalaix v. Centres d'Etude et de Conservation des Oeufs et de Sperme, No. 20321, D.S. Jur. 103 (Trib. gr. inst. 1984), where the court held that the testimonies and presumptions unequivocally established the wish of the deceased husband to have a child with his wife and this even after his death.

86 See generally L. ANDREWS, BETWEEN STRANGERS: SURROGATE MOTHERS, EXPECTANT FATHERS AND BRAVE NEW BABIES (1989).

87 See MATERNITE EN MOUVEMENT: LES FEMMES, LA RE/PRODUCTION ET LES HOMMES DE SCIENCE (A. de Vilaine, L. Gavarini & M. le Coadic eds. 1986); SORTIR LA MATERNITE DU LABORATOIRE, ACTES DU FORUM INTERNATIONAL SUR LES NOUVELLE TECHNOLOGIES DE LA REPRODUCTION ORGANISE PAR LE CONSEIL DU STATUT DE LA FEMME ET TENU A MONTREAL LES 29, 30 ET 31 OCTOBRE 1987, A L'UNIVERSITE CONCORDIA (1988).

88 Queensland Surrogate Act, § 3(1); Spanish Law, § 10(1), reprinted in 40 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 83. See also CANADIAN RAPPORT DU BARREAU, rec. 55; CANADIAN RAPPORT SUR LES NOUVELLES TECHNOLOGIES, rec. 57; CANADIAN AVIS DU CONSEIL DU STATUT DE LA FEMME, rec. 4.2; CANADIAN BAR ASS'N RECOMMENDATIONS, rec. 10(d); FRENCH RAPPORT DU CONSEIL D'ETAT, rec. 28, at 65; Swiss RAPPORT FEDERAL. See generally G. ANNAS, JUDGING MEDICINE (1988).

89 Queensland Surrogate Act, § 3(1); German Law, §§ 1,2, reprinted in 42 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 60-61; Spanish Law, § 5(3), reprinted in 40 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 83; Swiss Canton de Bale, § 2, reprinted in 39 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 82. See also AUSTRIAN REPORT; Canadian Projet, art. 582; CANADIAN RAPPORT DU BARREAU, recs. 17, 18; CANADIAN RAPPORT SUR LES NOUVELLES TECHNOLOGIES, rec. 54; CANADIAN AVIS DU CONSEIL DU STATUT DE LA FEMME, rec. 4.1; FRENCH RAPPORT DU CONSEIL D'ETAT, rec. 27, at 65; FRENCH AVANT PROJET BRAIBANT, art. 11 (art. 342-12); German A.M.A. Report; GERMAN BENDA REPORT, at 34; ITALIAN MINISTERIAL COMM'N REPORT, art. 34; NETHERLANDS AVIS DU CONSEIL DE SANTE; NEW ZEALAND PALMER REPORT, 4.16; Swiss INITIATIVE POPULAIRE, 3.C; SWISS DIRECTIVES, rec. 5; SWISS RAPPORT FEDERAL; WORLD MEDICAL ASS'N REPORT , reprinted in 39 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 274; COUNCIL OF EUROPE REPORT, prin. 9(1), reprinted in 40 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 910; Knoppers & Sloss, supra note 2, at 714-16.

90 See generally CANADIAN BAR ASS'N RECOMMENDATIONS, rec. 10(a); Knoppers & Sloss, supra note 2, at 709 (citing 2 ONTARIO LAW REFORM COMM'N REPORT, supra note 51, at 222).

91 CANADIAN RAPPORT SUR LES NOUVELLES TECHNOLOGIES, rec. 55; CANADIAN BAR ASS'N RECOMMENDATIONS, rec. 10(d); WORLD MEDICAL ASS'N REPORT, reprinted in 39 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 273-74.

92 See COMITE CONSULTATIF NATIONAL D'ETHIQUE, AVIS SUR LES PROBLEMES POSES PAR LE DEVELOPPEMENT DES METHODES D'UTILISATION DE CELLULES H U M A I N E S ET LEURS DERIVES (1987); REVUE INTERNATI6NALE DE DROIT PENAL, DROIT PENAL ET TECHNIQUES BIOMEDICALES MODERNES: Acres DU COLLOQUE PREPARATOIRE TENU A L'INSTITUT MAX PLANCK DE DROIT PENAL ETRANGER ET INTERNATIONAL 910-17 (1988); Labrusse-Riou, Servitude, Servitudes: Partes Ouvertes et Ferme'es sur un Statut du Corps Humain mix Mains de la Science in L'HOMME, LA NATURE ET LE DROIT 308 (B. Edelman & M. Hermitte eds. 1988); Galloux, Essai de Definition d'un Statut Juridique pour le Materiel Genetique (1988) (Doctoral Thesis, Bordeaux); see also OFFICE OF TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, NEW DEVELOPMENTS IN BIOTECHNOLOGY: OWNERSHIP OF HUMAN TISSUES AND CELLS 49-144 (1987); Bernard, Le Corps Humain, Objet du Control., in BIOETHIQUE ET DROIT, supra note 73, at 148; Hermitte, Le Corps Hon de Commerce, Hors du Marche, 33 ARCHIVES DE PHILOSOPHIE DE DROIT 323 (1989).

93 South Australian Reproductive Technology Act, § 13(7)(b), reprinted in 39 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 869; Spanish Law, § 5(3), reprinted in 40 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 83; Swiss Canton de Bale, § 2, reprinted in 39 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 82; Swiss Canton de Vaud, guideline 8, reprinted in 38 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 77. See also CANADIAN RAPPORT DU BARREAU, rec.7; CANADIAN RAPPORT SUR LES NOUVELLES TECHNOLOGIES, recs. 20, 53; CANADIAN BAR ASS'N RECOMMENDATIONS, rec. 11(d); CANADIAN AVIS DU CONSEIL DU STATUT DE LA FEMME, rec. 2.4; FRENCH RAPPORT DU CONSEIL D'ETAT, recs. 13 at 64, 14 at 65; FRENCH AVANT PROJET BRAIBANT, art. 10 (arts. L. 668-6, 668-13); ITALIAN PROPOSTA DI LEGGE NO. 3749, art. 8; NEW ZEALAND PALMER REPORT, rec. 8; SWISS RAPPORT FEDERAL, at 65; WORLD MEDICAL ASS'N REPORT, reprinted in 39 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 274; COUNCIL OF EUROPE REPORT, prin. 9(l)-(2), reprinted in 40 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 910.

94 Knoppers & Sloss, supra note 2, at 672 (citing 2 ONTARIO LAW REFORM COMM'N REPORT, supra note 51, at 277 rec. 18(1)).

95 COUNCIL OF EUROPE, RESOLUTION (78)29 ON HARMONISATION OF LEGISLATIONS OF MEMBER STATES RELATING TO REMOVAL, GRAFTING AND TRANSPLANTATION OF HUMAN SUBSTANCES art. 1, ¶ 2 (1978).

96 Bulgarian Ordinance, § 15, reprinted in 41 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 75; South African Artificial Insemination Regulations, § 7, reprinted in 41 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 79; USSR Decree, § 3, Annexes 4, 6, reprinted in 40 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 597 (summary of statute); Swiss Canton de Vaud, guideline 8, reprinted in 38 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 77. See also CANADIAN RAPPORT SUR LES NOUVELLES TECHNOLOGIES, rec. 20; FRENCH RAPPORT DU CONSEIL D'ETAT, rec. 13, at 64; FRENCH AVANT PROJET BRAIBANT, art. 10 (art. L. 668-13); ITALIAN PROPOSTA DI LEGGE NO. 3749, art. 8, al. 1; NEW ZEALAND PALMER REPORT, rec. 1.69; COUNCIL OF EUROPE REPORT, prin. 9(1), reprinted in 40 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 910; COUNCIL OF EUROPE RECOMMENDATION 1100, t f 1. 8, app. H H(23), reprinted in 40 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 491. 5 ^ generally Knoppers, supra note 2.

97 Proposition de Loi Relative au Statut de I'Enfant Coney, Ainsi qu'aux Experimentations et Recherches Concemant la Creation de la Vie Humaine, Assembly National 2158, 2e Sess. art. 2 (1983-1984); District of Columbia, Sperm Bank Licensure and Regulation Act of 1984 (Bill 5- 359) (not passed).

98 Czechoslovakian Binding Instruction, art. 8.

99 See generally Knoppers & Sloss, supra note 2, at 684 (citing 2 ONTARIO LAW REFORM COMM'N REPORT, supra note 51, at 276 rec. 15(2)).

100 See AMERICAN FERTILITY SOCIETY REPORT; WORLD MEDICAL ASS'N REPORT, reprinted in 39 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 271 (pertaining to physicians, not scientists); WORLD MEDICAL ASS'N, DECLARATION OF MADRID ON PROFESSIONAL AUTONOMY AND SELF-REGULATION, reprinted in 39 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS. 268 (1989) (pertaining to physicians, not scientists); UNITED KINGDOM INTERIM LICENCING AUTHORITY GUIDELINES, reprinted in 40 INT'L DIGEST OF HEALTH LEGIS., at 900.