Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Legal Regulation of Artificial Insemination and the New Reproductive Technologies

The Search for Clarification Continues

  • Chapter
Genetics and the Law III

  • 113 Accesses

Abstract

Concerns about the legal aspects of the new reproductive technologies—artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization, and ovum and zygote transfer—are part of the continuing public and professional discussions about what our societal policy toward these technologies ought to be. The concerns are many and varied and include the desirability and availability of the technologies and the potential liability of those who use them. The desire for a clarification of legal responsibility is especially fueled by a heightened fear of liability, which has contributed to the pressure for straightforward legal answers and for a clear, comprehensive public policy dealing with these technologies. Lawyers know all too well the impatient cries of “Tell us the law, not philosophy.” With respect to one of the technologies, artificial insemination with donor sperm (AID), the search for legal answers during the past two decades has produced a substantial body of law. Yet, even in this area, many gaps remain. More important, there has not emerged a clear public-policy framework within which alternative forms of reproduction can be evaluated. Though this lack of a framework is frustrating to those who want clear legal answers, it is not unexpected and is not entirely bad.

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 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
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. Healey, J., Legal aspects of artifical insemination by donor and paternity testing in Genetics and the Law (A. Milunsky and G. J. Annas, eds.) Plenum Press, New York (1976), 203.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Annas, G., Fathers Anonymous: Beyond the best interests of the sperm donor, in Genetics and the Law II (A. Milunsky and G. J. Annas eds.), Plenum Press, New York (1980), 331.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  3. Ibid, at 338.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Arriving at a complete current list of state statutes is not an easy task. Three recent attempts did not result in identical lists. My own review produced at least one statute not cited by any of the other three authors. See Wadlington, W. Artificial conception: The challenge for family law, Virginia Law Review 69:465, 483 (1983);

    Google Scholar 

  5. Smith, G., The razor’s edge of human bonding: Artificial fathers and surrogate mothers, Western New England Law Review 5:639, 642 (1983);

    Google Scholar 

  6. Andrews, L. The stork market: The law of the new reproductive technologies, American Bar Association Journal 70:50, 54–5 (1984). From these three sources and my own research, the following list has been compiled:

    Google Scholar 

  7. Alaska Stat. Sect. 25.20.045 (1982)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Arkansas Stat. Sect. 61–141(C) (1983)

    Google Scholar 

  9. California Civ. Code Sect. 7005 (1982)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Colo. Rev. Stat. Sect. 19–6–106 (1978)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Conn. Gen. Stat. Sect. 45–69F-W (1981)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Fla. Stat. Ann. Sect. 742.11 (1984)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Ga. Code Ann. Sect. 19–7–21 (1984); Sect. 43–34–42 (1984)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Ill. Ann. Stat. Ch. 40 Sect. 1451 (1983–4)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Kan. Stat Ann. Sect. 23–128 to 23–130 (1983)

    Google Scholar 

  16. La. Civ. Code Ann. Art. 188 (1983)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Md. Est. and Trusts Code Ann. Sect. 1–206(B) (1983): Health Code, Sect. 20–214

    Google Scholar 

  18. Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. Ch. 46, Sect. 4B (1984)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Mich. Comp. Laws Sect. 333. 2824; Sect. 700. 11 (1980)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Minn. Stat. Sect. 257. 56 (1982)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Mont. Code Ann. Sect. 40–6–106 (1983)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Nev. Rev. Stat. Sect. 126. 061 (1979)

    Google Scholar 

  23. N.Y. Dom.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Law Sect. 73 (1983–4)

    Google Scholar 

  25. N.C. Gen. Stat. Sect. 49A-1 (1976)

    Google Scholar 

  26. Okla. Stat. Tit. 10, Sect. 551–553 (1983–4)

    Google Scholar 

  27. Or. Rev. Stat. Stat. Sect. 109.239–109.247; Sect. 667.355 to 677.370 (1984)

    Google Scholar 

  28. Tenn. Code Ann. Sect. 53–446 (1982)

    Google Scholar 

  29. Tex. Fam. Code Ann. Sect. 12.03 (1983)

    Google Scholar 

  30. Va. Code Ann. Sect. 64.1–7.1 (1984)

    Google Scholar 

  31. Wash. Rev. Code Ann. Sect. 26.26.050(1984–5)

    Google Scholar 

  32. Wis. Stat. Ann. Sect. 891.40 (1983–4); Sect. 767.47(9)

    Google Scholar 

  33. Wyo. Stat. Sect. 14–2–103 (1984)

    Google Scholar 

  34. See Healey, notes 13, 15, and 16, and Wadlington, pp. 477–479.

    Google Scholar 

  35. See, for example, CM. v. C.C. ,170 N.J. Super. 586, 407A2d. 849 (Juv. and Dom. Rel. Ct. 1979).

    Google Scholar 

  36. Oregon Revised Statutes, Section 677.370 (1984). The issue of screening sperm donors was addressed by the President’s Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research in its report Screening and Counseling for Genetic Conditions ,pp. 68–70, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC (1983). See also Should sperm donors be screened for sexually transmitted diseases New England Journal of Medicine 309:1058 (1983).

    Google Scholar 

  37. Wadlington, pp. 476–7.

    Google Scholar 

  38. For medical examples, see Van den Berg, J., Medical Power and Medical Ethics ,W. W. Norton, New York (1978).

    Google Scholar 

  39. McCormick, R., How Brave a New World Doubleday and Company, Garden City, NY (1981), 334– 335.

    Google Scholar 

  40. For a general discussion of the impact of an increase in the available options upon society, see Berger, P. The Heretical Imperative ,Anchor Press/Doubleday, Garden City, NY (1979), 1–31.

    Google Scholar 

  41. For a contrasting view of the desirability of various reproductive options, see Ramsey, P. Fabricated Man ,Yale University Press, New Haven, 1970.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Hanscombe, G. The right to Lesbian parenthood, Journal of Medical Ethics 9:133–135 (1983)

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Kern, P., and Ridolfi, K., Note: The fourteenth amendment’s protection of a woman’s right to be a single parent through artificial insemination by donor, Women’s Rights Law Reporter 7:251–284 (1982).

    Google Scholar 

  44. See Annas, G., Life, liberty and the pursuit of organ sales, The Hastings Center Report 14(1):22–23 (1984)

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Scott, R., The Body as Property ,Viking Press, New York (1981).

    Google Scholar 

  46. See Robertson, J., Procreative liberty and the control of conception, pregnancy and childbirth, Virginia Law Review 69:405–464 (1983).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. A valuable framework for the development of a comprehensive public policy has been offered by Wadlington, at pp. 487–515.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Community Medicine, University of Connecticut School of Medicine, Farmington, CT, 06032, USA

    Joseph M. Healey Jr. (Associate Professor)

Authors
  1. Joseph M. Healey Jr.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Human Genetics, Boston University School of Medicine, 80 East Concord Street, Boston, Massachusetts, 02118, USA

    Aubrey Milunsky MB.B.Ch., D.Sc., F.R.C.P, D.C.H. (Professor of Pediatrics, Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Pathology, Director) (Professor of Pediatrics, Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Pathology, Director)

  2. Health Law Section, Boston University Schools of Medicine and Public Health, 80 East Concord Street, Boston, Massachusetts, 02118, USA

    George J. Annas J.D., M.P.H. (Edward Utley Professor of Health Law Chief) (Edward Utley Professor of Health Law Chief)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1985 Aubrey Milunsky and George J. Annas

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Healey, J.M. (1985). Legal Regulation of Artificial Insemination and the New Reproductive Technologies. In: Milunsky, A., Annas, G.J. (eds) Genetics and the Law III. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4684-4952-5_12

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4684-4952-5_12

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4684-4954-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4684-4952-5

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation