No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Currents in Contemporary Ethics
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 January 2021
Extract
Contemporary developments in reproductive technology hold great promise for those who have difficulty conceiving naturally. However, they have generated extensive debate among lawyers, ethicists, legislators, the media, and the public. Concern has intensified recently in light of claimed attempts to clone human beings. One implication of the new reproductive technologies upon which few commentators have focused is their effect on inheritance rights and on the notorious Rule Against Perpetuities. For example, what impact should the possible existence of frozen sperm or frozen embryos have upon the execution of wills and implementation of the Rule? If one leaves property to one’s children but has frozen sperm or embryos that might produce children the Rule? If one leaves property to one’s children but has frozen sperm or embryos that might produce children decades after one’s death, what should be done about the distribution of the estate? These difficult questions can no longer be ignored.
- Type
- Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 2003
References
See Hoffman, Sharona Morriss, Andrew P., Birth After Death: Perpetuities & the New Reproductive Technologies, Georgia Law Review (2004) for a detailed analysis of the Rule Against Perpetuities and how it is impacted by the availability of new reproductive technologies.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
The New York State Task Force on Life on Life and the Law, Assisted Reproductive Technologies: Analysis and Recommendations for Public Policy 292 (1998).Google Scholar
Kerr, Susan M. et al., “Postmortem Sperm Procurement,” Journal of Urology 2154, 2154 (1997): At 167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Id. at 2156. The authors conducted a study that revealed a total of 82 requests made at 40 facilities in 22 different states in the U.S. between 1980 and 1995. Over half of the reported requests (43) were made during 1994 and 1995. Of the requests, 25 were honored at 14 facilities in 11 separate states. See id. at 2154.Google Scholar
Woodward v. Commissioner of Social Security, 760 N.E.2d 257, 272 (Mass. 2002).Google Scholar
Gillett-Netting v. Barnhart, 231 F.Supp.2d 961, 966 (2002).Google Scholar
Trounson, Alan Mohr, Linda, “Human Pregnancy Following Cryopreservation, Thawing and Transfer of an Eight-Cell Embryo,” 305 Nature 707 (1983). The pregnancy, however, ended unsuccessfully when the fetus was stillborn during the 24th week of gestation. Id. at 708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weiss, Rick, “Moral, space issues clash as embryos fill up freezers,” The Plain Dealer, May 8, 2003 at A16.Google Scholar
Brindsen, Peter R. et al., “Frozen Embryos: Decision Time in the U.K.”, Human Reproduction 10, 3083, 3084 (1995). In the United States many facilities specify a two to five year storage period, providing the couple an option to extend the time period with mutual written consent. Task Force, supra note 4, at 293. In Australia, many programs impose a ten-year limit on embryo storage, after which a couple must agree to the disposition of any unused embryos, or the matter is decided by an institutional ethics committee. See Saunders, Douglas M. et al., “Frozen Embryos: Too Cold to Touch? The Dilemma Ten Years On,” Human Reproduction 10 3081 (1995). In England, a 1991 law dictated a five year limit to embryo storage and prohibited cryopreservation of embryos unless couples agreed in advance to the destruction of unused embryos after this period. Brindsen, supra at 3083; Edwards, R. G. Beard, Helen K., “Destruction of Cryopreserved Embryos: UK Law Dictated the Destruction of 3000 Cryopreserved Human Embryos”, Human Reproduction 12:3 (1997). In May of 1996 the law was amended to allow couples who created embryos to obtain a five year extension of the storage period, but British fertility clinics nonetheless destroyed approximately 3,300 embryos for which no one requested extended cryopreservation. Ibrahim, Youssef M., “Ethical Furor Erupts in Britain: Should Embryos Be Destroyed?,” New York Times Aug. 1,1996, at A1.Google Scholar
TASK FORCE; supra note 4, at 83.Google Scholar
A somatic cell is a cell other than a sperm or an egg. Taber’s Cyclopedic Medical Dictionary, supra note 3, at 1704.Google Scholar
TASK FORCE, supra note 4, at 390–91.Google Scholar
Andrews, Lori B. Elster, Nanette, “Regulating Reproductive Technologies,” Journal of Legal Medicine 21 (2000): 35, 64.Google Scholar
See Cibelli, Jose B. et al., “The First Human Cloned Embryo,” Scientific American (November 24, 2001), available at http://www.sciam.com. The scientists hope to develop human embryos for therapeutic rather than reproductive purposes.Google Scholar
Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark France, Germany, Israel, Japan, Norway, Peru, Slovakia, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom either have laws against human cloning or have announced plans to pass such laws. See H.R. Rep. No. 18, Human Cloning Prohibition Act Of 2003, 108th Cong., 1st sess., 2003 WL 550319 (Legal History), (February 25, 2003).Google Scholar
See, e.g., McKie, Robin, “Dolly dies - but human cloning will still happen,” The Observer (February 16, 2003).Google Scholar
See Wadlington, Walter, “Artificial Conception: The Challenge for Family Law,” Virginia Law Review. 65 (1983): 465; Krause, Harry D., “Equal Protection for the Illegitimate,” Michigan Law Review 65:477 (1967); Le Ray, Charles Nelson, Note, “Implications Of DNA Technology On Posthumous Paternity Determination: Deciding The Facts When Daddy Can’t Give His Opinion,” Boston College Law Review 35 (1994): 747, 794–795.CrossRefGoogle Scholar