Advertisement

Legal Implications and Regulation of in Vitro Fertilization

  • Barbara F. Katz

Abstract

Recent events in England, which witnessed the birth of the world’s first “test tube” baby, or baby conceived by means of in vitro fertilization (IVF), have elevated the serious medical, ethical, and legal issues surrounding this biomedical advance into the public forum.1 Questions arise such as whether IVF is a nonhuman form of reproduction and is therefore immoral as a dehumanizing process; whether IVF is unethical and illegal experimentation with human beings; whether the state of science involved in IVF has not reached the point to warrant the participation of human beings; whether the potential danger of IVF children being born with physical abnormalities can be resolved; whether the law will create obstacles to the development of the process and/or to the individuals involved in it.

Keywords

Supra Note Artificial Insemination Ethic Advisory Civil Liability Surrogate Mother 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References and Notes

  1. 1.
    See,eg, All about that baby, Newsweek, p. 66, Aug. 7 (1978); The first test-tube baby, Time, p. 58, July 31 (1978). According to news reports, the baby girl, born by Caesarean section, is in normal health. See, generally, In vitro fertilization: Four commentaries, Hastings Cent. Rep. 8:7 (1978).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    See, generally, Edwards, R. G., Bavister, B. D., and Steptoe, P. L., Early stages of fertilization in vitro of human oocytes matured in vivo, Nature 221:632 (1969); Shettles, L. B., Human blastocyst growth in vitro in ovulation cervical mucus, Nature 229:343 (1971); Steptoe, P. L., and Edwards, R. G., Laparoscopic recovery of preovulatory human oocytes after priming the ovaries with gonadotropins, Lancet 1: 683 (1970).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kass, L., Making babies—The new biology and the “old” morality, Public Int. 26:18, 23 (1972); Soupart, P. J., and Morgenstern, L., Human sperm capacitation and in vitro fertilization, Fertil. Steril. 24: 462 (1973).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    See Edwards, R., and Sharpe, D., Social values and research in human embryology, Nature 231:87 (1974); Reilly, P., In vitro fertilization—A legal perspective, in: Genetics and the Law (G. Annas and A. Milunsky), pp. 359, 364 (1975).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    See, eg, Kass, supra note 3, at 27; Kass, L., Babies by means of in vitro fertilization: Unethical experi¬ments on the unborn?, N. Engl. J. Med. 285: 1174 (1971).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rorvik, D., The embryo sweepstakes, New York Times Magazine, pp. 17, 50, Sept. 15 (1974).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    See Grad, F., Legislative responses to the new biology: Limits and possibilities, UCLA L. Rev. 15:480, 501 (1968); Hudock, G., Gene therapy and genetic engineering: Frankenstein is still a myth, but it should be reread periodically, Indiana L. J. 48: 533 (1973).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    eg, Guttmacher, A., Artifical insemination, DePaulL. Rev. 18:566 (1969); McLaren, Biological aspects of AID, in: CIBA Foundation, Symposium in Legal and Other Aspects of Artificial Insemination by Donor- (A.I.D.) and Embryo Transfer (Vol. 3) (1972). See LvL, 1 All. E.R. 141 (1949) (English); Kinney, L., Legal issues of the new reproductive technologies, Calif. St. B. J., Nov./Dec.:514 (1977). See also Thies, W., A look to the future: Property rights and the posthumously conceived child, Trusts and Estates 110:922 (1971).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    eg, Orford v. Orford, 49 Ont. L.R. 15, 58 D.L.R. 251 (1921). See Oakley, M. A., Test tube babies: Proposals for legal regulation of new methods of human conception and prenatal development, Fam. L. Q. 8:385, (1974); Smith, G., Through a test tube darkly: Artificial insemination and the law, Mich. L. Rev. 67:127, 135 (1968). See also Doornbos v. Doornbos, 23 U.S.L.W. 2308 (Super. Ct. Cook County, 111., Dec. 13, 1954), appeal dismissed on procedural grounds, 12 111. App. 2d 473, 139 N.E. 2d 844 (1956); Hoch v. Hoch No. 44-C-8307 (Cir. A. Cook County, 111., 1945); Time, p. 58, Feb. 26 (1945).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hager, J., Artificial insemination: Some practical considerations for effective counseling, N.C. L. Rev. 39: 217, 232 (1961).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Plosowe, M., The place of law in medico-moral problems: A legal view II, N.Y.U. L. Rev. 31: 1238, 1242 (1956).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hager, supra note 10, at 233.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    1958) Sess. Cas. 105, (1958) Scots L.T.R. 12. See People v. Sorenson, 66 Cal. Rptr. 7, 437 P.2d 495 (1968).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    1958) Sess. Cas. at 113.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    eg, Gursky v. Gursky, 39 Misc.2d 1083, 242 N.Y.S.2d 406 ( Sup. Ct. 1963 ).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    In re Adoption of Anonymous, 74 Misc.2d 99, 345 N.Y.S.2d 430 (Surrogate Ct. 1973); Strnad v. Strnad, 190 Mis. 786, 78 N.Y.S.2d 390 (Sup. Ct. 1948). See People ex rel. Abajian v. Dennett, 15 Misc. 2d 260, 134 N.Y.S.2d 178 (Sup. Ct. 1958). See also Levy v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 68(1968), rehearing denied 393 U.S. 898; Giona v. American Guarantee and Liability Ins. Co., 391 U.S. 73 (1968); Re Estate of Jensen, 162 N. W. 2d 861 (N.D. 1968); Storv. None, 57 Misc. 2d 342,291 N.Y.S. 2d 515 (1968); Green v. Woodard, 40 Ohio App. 2d 101, 69 0hioOps.2d 130., 318N.E.2d 397; C. Boardman, New York Family Law s. 116 (Biskind ed.).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cai. Rptr. 7, 437 P. 2d 495 (1968).Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ibid, at 10, 437 P. 2d at 498.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ibid, at 10, 437 P.2d at 498.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ibid, at 13, 437 P. 2d at 501.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    See, generally, Note, Artificial insemination: A legislative remedy, West St. U.L. Rev. 3: 48 (1975).Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ga. Code Ann. ss 74 - 101. 1 (1973).Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 10, ss 551-53 (Supp. 1974). Kan. Stat. Ann. ss 23-128 to - 130 (1974). Ark. Stat. Ann. ss 61-141(c) (Supp. 1971). Md. Ann. Code art. 43, s 556E (Supp. 1974). N.C. Gen. Stat. S.49A-1 (Supp. 1974). N.Y. Dom. Rei. Law s73 (McKinney Supp. 1975). Cai. Civ. Code ss 195, 216 (West Supp. 1975 ). Cai. Penal Code s270 (West Supp. 1975).Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kass, supra note 3, at 28.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    See, eg, Dietrich v. Inhabitants of Northampton, 138 Mass. 14(1884).Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Prosser, W., Handbook of the Law of Torts (4th ed.), p. 336 (1971). See Bonbrest v. Katz, 65 F. Supp. 138 (D.D.C. 1946 ). See, generally, Wilson, Fetal experimentation: Legal implications of an ethical conun¬drum, Denver L. J. 53:581 (1976).Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    eg, Jorgensen v. Meade Johnson Laboratories Inc., 483 F.2d 237 (10th Cir. 1973); Renslow v. Mennonite Hospital, 67 111.2d 348, 367 N.W.2d 1250 (1977); Park v. Chessin, 88 Misc.2d 222, 387 N.Y.S.2d 204 (Sup. Ct. 1976), affd, 60 App. Div.2d 80, 400 N.Y.S. 2d 110 (1977).Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Leccese v. McDonough, 361 Mass. 64, 68, 279 N.E.2d 339, 342 (1972); Keyes v. Construction ServInc., 340 Mass. 633, 165 N.E. 2d 912 (1960).Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    eg, Bonbrest v. Kotz, 65 F. Supp. 138 (D.D.C. 1946 ).Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    eg, Smith v. Brennan, 31 N.J. 353, 157 A.2d 497 (1960); Daley v. Meier, 33 111. App.2d 218, 178 N.E.2d 691 (1961); Torigian v. Watertown News Co., 352 Mass. 446, 225 N.E.2d 926 (1967); Kelly v. Gregory, 282 App. Div. 542, 125 N.Y.S. 2d 696 (1953).Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Note, The “brave new baby” and the law: Fashioning remedies for the victims of in vitro fertilization, Am. J. L. Med. 4: 319 (1978).Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    eg, Williams v. State, 18 N.Y.2d 481, 223 N.E.2d 343 (1966); Zepeda v. Zepeda, 41 111. App.2d 240, 190 N.E.2d 849 (1963), cert, denied, 379 U.S. 945 (1964); Nell is v. Chicago Wesley Memorial Hospital, No. 701-15177 (Cir. Ct. Cook County, 111., June 18, 1974 ).Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    See Qustodio v. Bauer, 251 Cai. App.2d 303 (1967); Gleitman v. Cosgrove, 49 N.J. 22, 111 A.2d 689 (1967). See also Brodie, D., The new biology and the prenatal child, J. Fam. L. 9:391, 396(1970); Gordon, The unborn “wrongful life,” N.Y.U. L. Rev. 38:1078 (1963); Tedeschi, L., On tort liability for “wrongful life,” Israel L. Rev. 513 (1966); Note, Fetal research: A view from right to left to wrongful birth, Chi-Kent L. Rev. 52:133 (1975). For example, the Supreme Court of Alabama recently refused to find a cause of action for “wrongful life” in a suit brought by a deformed child born despite her father’s vasectomy. Elliott v. Brown, Dkt. No. 77-114 ( Ala., Aug. 18, 1978 ).Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    See Park v. Chessin, 60 App. Div.2d 80, 400 N.Y.S. 2d 110 (1977).Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Jacobs v. Theimer, 519 S.W.2d 846 (Tex. 1975 ).Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Ziemoa v. Sternberg, 45 A.D.2d 230, 357 N.Y.S.2d 265 (1974). Contra Rieck v. Medical Protective Co., 64 Wis. 2d 514, 219 N.W.2d 242 (1974).Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Troppi v. Scarf, 31 Mich. App. 240, 187 N.W.2d 511 (1971). The case was subsequently settled.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Doerr v. Villate, 74 111. App.2d 332, 220 N.E.2d 767 (1966). See Robertson, J., Civil liability arising from “wrongful birth” following an unsuccessful sterilization operation, Am. J. L. Med. 4: 130 (1978).Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    See Note, Park v. Chessin: The continuing development of the theory of wrongful life, Am. J. L. Med. 4: 211 (1978).Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Kass, supra note 3, at 32.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Abel, K., The legal implications of ectogenetic research, Tulsa L. J. 10: 243, 248 (1974).Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Black’s Law Dictionary (rev. 4th ed.), p. 917 (1968).Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Abel, supra note 41, at 252. See Gilpin v. Gilpin, 94 N.Y.S.2d 706 ( Dom. Rei. Ct. 1950 ).Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    See Annas, G., Glantz, L., and Katz, B., Informed Consent to Human Experimentation: The Subject’s Dilemma, p. 200, Ballinger, Cambridge (1977).Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    U.S. at 113.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Ibid. at 154.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Ibid. at 164.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
  49. 49.
  50. 50.
    See, generally, Note, supra note 31.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    See, generally, Annas, G., Glantz, L., and Katz, B., supra note 44.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    See Wilson, supra note 26, at 637.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Ibid. at 638.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Prosser, W., Handbook of the Law of Torts (4th ed.), p. 237 (1971).Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Norman v. Murphy, 124 Cal. App. 2d 95, 268 P.2d 178 (1954); Drabbels v. Skelly Oil Co., 155 Neb. 17, 50 N.W.2d 229 (1951); Grafv. Taggert, 43 N.J. 303, 204 A.2d 140 (1964); Carroll v. Skioff, 415 Pa. 47, 202 A.2d 9 (1964); Durrett v. Owens, 212 Tenn. 614, 371 S.W.2d 433 (1963).Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    eg, Simmons v. Howard University, 323 F. Supp. 529 (D.D.C. 1971); Chrisafogeorgis v. Brandenberg, 55 III. 2d 368, 304 N.W.2d 88 (1973); Britt v. Sears, 150 Ind. App. 487, 277 N.E.2d 20 (Ct. App. 1971); O’Neill v. Morse, 235 Mich. 130, 188 N.W.2d 785 (1971); Libbee v. Permanente Clinic, 1268 Ore. 258, 518 P. 2d 636 (1974); Baldwin v. Butcher, 184 S.E.2d 428 (W. Va. 1971). See Eich v. Town of Gulf Shores, 293 Ala. 95, 300 So.2d 354 (1974); Porter v. Lassiter, 91 Ga. App. 712, 87 S.E.2d 100 (1955).Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    See Prosser, W., Handbook of the Law of Torts (4th ed.), s 12, p. 56 (1971).Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Ibid, at 59.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    The first test tube baby, Time, pp. 58, 61, July 31 (1978).Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Rorvik, supra note 6, at 55.Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    The first test tube baby, supra note 59.Google Scholar
  62. 62.
  63. 63.
    Woman awarded $50,000 in suit on test-tube baby, Boston Globe, p. 2, Aug. 19 (1978).Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Reilly, supra note 4, at 364.Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Ibid, at 368.Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Fed. Reg. 31, 748 (1973).Google Scholar
  67. 67.
  68. 68.
  69. 69.
    Ibid, at 31, 743.Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Fed. Reg. 30, 648 (1974). See Martin, M., Ethical standards for fetal experimentation, Fordham L. Rev. 43: 547 (1975).Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Fed. Reg. 33, 526 (1975) (Codified in 45 C.F.R. s 46). See Markey, K., Federal regulation of fetal research: Toward a public policy founded on ethical reasoning, U. Miami L. Rev. 31: 675, 685 (1977).Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Fed. Reg. 30, 650 (1974).Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Ibid. See, generally, Capron, A., The law relating to experimentation with the fetus, in: Research on the Fetus, 13-1, The National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Be¬havioral Research, Appendix, DHEW Pub. No. (05) 76 - 128 (1975).Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Fed. Reg. 33, 529 (1975).Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    See Note, supra note 31.Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    See Annas, G., Glantz, L., and Katz, B., supra note 44, at 206.Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    See Annas, G., Glantz, L., and Katz, B., supra note 44, at 50.Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    See eg, Dandridge v. Williams, 397 U.S. 471 (1970); Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969).Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    Note, Governmental control of research in positive eugenics, J. L. Ref. 7: 615, 620 (1974).Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    eg, Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944); Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905).Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967).Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965).Google Scholar
  83. 83.
    Skinnerv. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535 (1941).Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    See, eg, Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438, 452-55(1972). See also Smith, G., Manipulating the genetic code: Jurisprudential conundrums, Georgetown L. J. 64: 697, 750 (1976).Google Scholar
  85. 85.
    Skinnerv. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1941).Google Scholar
  86. 86.
    U.S. 479, 495 (1965).Google Scholar
  87. 87.
    U.S. 438 (1972).Google Scholar
  88. 88.
    U.S. 113 (1973).Google Scholar
  89. 89.
    See Note, supra note 31; Green, H., Genetic technology: Law and policy for the brave new world, Indiana L.J. 48:559, 565 (1973). See, generally, Wilson, J., Fetal experimentation: Rights of the father and questions of personhood, Villanova L. Rev. 22:403 (1976-77).Google Scholar
  90. 90.
    See Kass, supra note 3, at 32.Google Scholar
  91. 91.
    See Golding, M., and Golding, N., Ethical and value issues in population limitation and distribution in the United States, Wand. L. Rev. 24: 495, 512 (1971).Google Scholar
  92. 92.
    U.S. 200 (1927).Google Scholar
  93. 93.
    Ibid, at 207.Google Scholar
  94. 94.
    See Pate, R., and Plant, P., Sterilization of mental defectives, Cumberland-Sanford L. Rev. 3: 458 (1972).Google Scholar
  95. 95.
    eg, In re Moore, 221 S.E.2d 307 (N.C. 1976).Google Scholar
  96. 96.
    See Vukowich, W., The dawning of the brave new world—Legal, ethical and social issues of eugenics, U. III. L.F. 1971: 189, 208 (1971).Google Scholar
  97. 97.
    Ethics Advisory Board, Report and Conclusions: HEW Support of Research Involving Human In Vitro Fertilization and Embryo Transfer, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (May 4, 1979 ).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1980

Authors and Affiliations

  • Barbara F. Katz
    • 1
  1. 1.Office of General CounselMassachusetts Department of Public HealthBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations