Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Statutory and Case Law Governing Oocyte and Embryo Donation

  • Chapter
Principles of Oocyte and Embryo Donation

  • 100 Accesses

Abstract

The legal system is no stranger to familial relationships. The law has long created them through marriage, disentangled them through divorce, protected children born within them through guardianships and adoption, and intervened through “care and custody” mechanisms when children are perceived by society to be “ at risk.” What is unusual, however, is the evergrowing role the law is being forced to play without established laws or policies. As the assisted reproductive technologies radically alter the ways in which our society creates families, these medical advances have outpaced the existing legal framework to regulate them and to secure the families they help create.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Seibel M, Crockin SL. Family Building through Egg and Sperm Donation. Sudbury: Jones and Bartlett; 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Skinner v Oklahoma, 316 US 535 (1942); Griswold v Connecticut, 381 US 479 (1965); Eisentstadt v Baird, 405 US 438 (1972); Roe v Wade, 410 US 113 (1973); Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v Casey, 112 SCt 2791 (1992).

    Google Scholar 

  3. Skinner v Oklahoma, 316 US at 541 (1942).

    Google Scholar 

  4. Stanley v. Illinois, 405 US 645, 651 (1972).

    Google Scholar 

  5. Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v Casey, 112 SCt 2791 (1992).

    Google Scholar 

  6. Which has passed legislation such as the Child Support Enforcement Act, 42 USC § 6 Sec 5115a (1996); the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, 42 USC § § 5101-5106 (1988 and Supp. V. 1993); and the Multiethnic Placement Act of 1994, 42 USC § § 651-668 (1988 and Supp. V. 1993).

    Google Scholar 

  7. “ The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or the people.” 10th Amendment, United States Constitution.

    Google Scholar 

  8. For a comprehensive table outlining the differences among those laws, see Family Building through Egg and Sperm Donation, pp. 39–40 (prepared by Jaeger, A).

    Google Scholar 

  9. District of Columbia, Louisiana, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, and Oregon.

    Google Scholar 

  10. District of Columbia, Illinois, Indiana, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and Vermont formally accord recognition to coparent adoptions. Other states or counties within other states have regularly allowed such adoptions without a high state court’s ruling.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Welborn v Doe, 394 SE2d 732 (1990); reviewed in SL Crockin, Legally speaking, Fertility News (3/91).

    Google Scholar 

  12. For example, Anonymous v Anonymous, 246 NYS2d 1835 (1964).

    Google Scholar 

  13. CM. v C.C, 152 NJ Super 160, 377 A2d 821 (1977); Thomas S. v Robin Y., 618 NY Supp 2d 356, aff d 627 NYS2d 326 (1995).

    Google Scholar 

  14. Fla Stat Ann § 645.11-.17 (Supp. 1995); Okla Stat Ann tit 10, Sec 544 (1991); ND Cent Code § 14-18-01-07 (supp 1995); Tex Fam Code Ann § 12.O3A-.O4 (Supp 1995); and Va Code Ann § 20-156 to 165 (1995) and § 32.1-45.3 (Supp 1995).

    Google Scholar 

  15. Tex Fam Code Ann § § 12.03 A and B.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Tex Fam Code Ann § 12.03B(c).

    Google Scholar 

  17. Fla Stat Ann § 742.011.

    Google Scholar 

  18. MacDonald v MacDonald, 196 AD2d 7, 608 NYS2d 477 (1994).

    Google Scholar 

  19. Ezzone v Ezzone, Lake Cty Dom Rels Ct (Ohio). (Magistrate ruling, 10/24/97).

    Google Scholar 

  20. Belsito v Clark, 67 Ohio Misc 54 (1994).

    Google Scholar 

  21. Johnson v. Culvert, 19 Cal Rptr2d 494 (5. Cal 4th 84) (1993).

    Google Scholar 

  22. Id. at 500.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Id. at 500, fn 10.

    Google Scholar 

  24. In Re Baby M, 217 NJ Super 313, 525 A2d 1128 (1987); 109 NJ 396, 537 A2d. 1227 (1988).

    Google Scholar 

  25. Johnson v Calvert, Id. at 504.

    Google Scholar 

  26. A 1996 Embryo Storage Survey conducted through the ASRM RLTPG group reported an average of 700 embryos at 100 programs responding of 300 queried. (October, 1996).

    Google Scholar 

  27. York v Jones, 111 F Supp 421 (1989); Davis v Davis, 842 SW2d 588 (TN 1992), cert, denied, 113 SCt 1259.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Crockin SL. Donor oocytes, once given can the gift be taken away? Clin Consult Obstet Gynecol. 1994, June; 6(2): 150–157.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Davis v Davis, 842 SW2d 588 (Tenn 1992).

    Google Scholar 

  30. Kass v Kass, NY Sup Ct App Div 2d Dept., No. 95-02615 (9/8/97); 23 FLR 1535-6; AZ v BZ, MA Probate & Fam Ct (Suffolk) (1996).

    Google Scholar 

  31. Kass, 23 FLR 1536 (9/30/97).

    Google Scholar 

  32. Proposed resolution of the American Bar Association’s Executive Committee on Reproductive Technology and Genetics, approved by the ABA’s Family Law Section in 1996 and pending for final approval. If approved, it would only be legally binding in a state if enacted as legislation.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Robertson J, Crockin SL. Legal issues in egg donation. In: Seibel M, Crockin SL. Family Building through Egg and Sperm Donation. Sudbury: Jones and Bartlett; 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Braverman AM, et al. Survey results on the current practice of ovum donation. Fertil Steril. 1993; 59(6): 1216–1220.

    Google Scholar 

  35. La Rev Stat Ann § 9: 122 (West 1991).

    Google Scholar 

  36. Daniels KR, Gillian ML. Donor insemination: the gifting and selling of semen. Soc Sci Med. 1996; 42(11): 1521–1536; Daniels KR, Curson R, Gillian ML. Semen donor recruitment: a study of donors in two clinics. Hum Reprod. 1996; 11 (4): 746-751.; Seibel M. Compensating egg donors: equal pay for equal time? N Engl J Med. 1993; 328: 737.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. 1986 Federal Organ Transplant Act, 42 USCA 274(e).

    Google Scholar 

  38. Robertson JA, Crockin SL. Legal issues in egg donation. In: Seibel M, Crockin SL. Family Building through Egg and Sperm Donation. Sudbury: Jones and Bartlett; 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Uniform Anatomical Gift Act (1987 ULA) (Adopted by all 50 states, DC, Virgin Islands, and Guam).

    Google Scholar 

  40. La Rev Stat Ann § 9: 122 (West 1991); Fla Rev Ann § 873.05 (West Supp 1987).

    Google Scholar 

  41. Fla Stat Ann § 742. 14.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Nev Rev Stat § 201.460 (1991).

    Google Scholar 

  43. Penal Code, sec.367f (West, 1988); SD Cod Laws Ann sec. 34-26-42; and see discussion in Robertson JD, Crockin SL. Legal issues in egg donation, supra.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Mass Gen laws ch 112 § 12J.

    Google Scholar 

  45. ASRM Guidelines for Gamete Donation: 1993, VI.A.

    Google Scholar 

  46. ASRM Guidelines for Gamete Donation: 1993, VI.C.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Braverman AM, et al. Survey results on the current practice of ovum donation. Fertil Steril. 1993; 59(6): 1216–1220.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Lifchez v Hartigan, 735 F Supp 1361 (NDIII 1990).

    Google Scholar 

  49. ASRM guidelines recommend that recipients and donors be fully informed of the legal “ situation, including legal uncertainty, existing in their jurisdiction” and be advised to consult an attorney for “ further clarification and protection of their legal interests.” ASRM Guidelines for Gamete Donation: 1993, X.A. and C.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Personal communication (with SL Crockin, 1997).

    Google Scholar 

  51. At least one insurer has offered such a program in several states: AIG Oocyte Donor/Recipient Accident Insurance Plan, Administrator: KRB & Associates, Houston, TX.

    Google Scholar 

  52. See, e.g., Mohr v Comm, 421 Mass 147 (1995), recognizing the tort and noting same doctrine previously accepted in Illinois, Ohio, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Mohr, Id. at 162.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Guidelines for therapeutic donor insemination: sperm. VIIC.5.a., within Guidelines for Gamete Donation: 1993. Fertil Steril. 1993 February; 59(2).

    Google Scholar 

  55. ASRM draft Guidelines for oocyte donation. App B III.

    Google Scholar 

  56. 45 CFR § 46.203(c) (1986).

    Google Scholar 

  57. An unofficial moratorium on federally funded embryo research had been in place since 1980 when the Ethics Advisory Board, required to approve such research, was left unstaffed. It was reconstituted in 1988. 53 Fed Reg 35232 (9/12/88). A 1993 Executive Order lifted the ban on fetal tissue research and a Human Embryo Research Panel, convened to recommend federal guidelines for such research, made recommendations to the President in 1994 that are currently under NIH review. 58 Fed Reg 7468 (2/5/93).

    Google Scholar 

  58. Arizona, Arkansas, California, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, and Wyoming.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Arkansas, Florida, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Min-nesota, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, and Utah.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Arkansas, Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nebraska, North Dakota, Rhode Island, and Wyoming.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Ky Rev Stat Ann § 311.715 (Michie 1990).

    Google Scholar 

  62. Margaret v Edwards, 794 F2d 994 (5th Cir. 1986); Lifchez v Hartigan, 735 F Supp 1361 (NDIII 1990).

    Google Scholar 

  63. iStiver v Parker, 975 F2d 2261 (1992). Coincidental to the legal analysis, the child was later determined to be the genetic child of the surrogate’s husband, and the couple also claimed that they were never advised to refrain from sexual relations during the time of the insemination.

    Google Scholar 

  64. iHuddleston v Infertility Center of America, Inc., Pa Super Ct. No. 01888 PHL 1996 (8/20/97); 23 FLR 1487 (9/2/97); reversing PICs Case No. 96-6763 (CP Northampton, PA) (4/30/96).

    Google Scholar 

  65. See report of cases in Crockin SL. Legally speaking. Fertil News. Winter 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Higgins v Memorial Hospital and Memorial Healthcare Group, #96-01810 CA, 4th Jud Cir, FL (Duval Cty.) (filed 6/25/96).

    Google Scholar 

  67. Personal consultations involving several programs, Crockin SL.

    Google Scholar 

  68. ASRM Ethics Committee Statement, approved July 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  69. 1996 Cal Legis Serv ch 865, 863 (West).

    Google Scholar 

  70. Supra, at n 65.

    Google Scholar 

  71. Higgins v Memorial Hospital, Complaint, para 10.

    Google Scholar 

  72. “ 20/20.” ABC (11/29/96).

    Google Scholar 

  73. 49 Cal Rptr 2d 694 (1996).

    Google Scholar 

  74. Id. at 702. (Appeal pending).

    Google Scholar 

  75. 1996 Cal Legis Serv ch 865, § 1 (b), (c).

    Google Scholar 

  76. Drafted by the American Bar Association and approved by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Acts August 4, 1988, and by the ABA House of Delegates on February 7, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  77. Angerame L. Self-regulation, everyone’s best bet. Insights into Infertility (Summer/Fall 1996: 1-2), with Jones HW. The time has come. Fertil Steril. 1996, June; 65(6): 1090–1092.

    Google Scholar 

  78. The American Bar Association’s Executive Committee on Reproductive Technology and Genetics, on which the author sits, is currently drafting a model Act Regulating the Assisted Reproductive Technologies, intended as a comprehensive piece of legislation, offering clear and uniform guidelines and governing many aspects of the ARTs.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Susan L. Crockin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Reproductive Endocrinology, Columbia University, College of Physicians and Surgeons Columbia-Presbyterian Medical Center, 622 West 168th Street, PH16-28, New York, NY, 10032-3784, USA

    Mark V. Sauer

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1998 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Crockin, S.L. (1998). Statutory and Case Law Governing Oocyte and Embryo Donation. In: Sauer, M.V. (eds) Principles of Oocyte and Embryo Donation. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-1640-7_16

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-1640-7_16

  • Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4612-7226-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4612-1640-7

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation