Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Textbook of Oncofertility Research and Practice pp 333–347Cite as

Legal Issues in Oncofertility Treatment

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Abstract

This chapter highlights the unique legal issues surrounding fertility preservation, including legal issues of informed consent and autonomy for individual and coupled adults as well as minors; embryo disputes and related embryo legislation; legal distinctions between informed consent and contract law and related documentation; current, relevant legislation and case law surrounding mandatory access to insurance coverage for fertility preservation; posthumous reproduction including access to genetic material and resulting parent-child status; and third-party reproduction, including surrogacy and egg and sperm donation.

The author would like to thank her former student, Jennifer Madrid, JD, for her invaluable assistance in preparing this chapter.

This is a preview of subscription content, 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   129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD   169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover 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

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    As of press time, IL passed its law Aug. 2019, NJ has pending active fertility preservation legislation, and AZ, CA, HI, KY, LA, MS, MO, NY and VT have inactive pending bills (see 7 http://www.allianceforfertilitypreservation.org/advocacy/state-legislation for more information).

  2. 2.

    For an illustration of the changes made to the CT infertility mandate, see the CT General assembly website at 7 https://www.cga.ct.gov/2017/lcoamd/pdf/2017LCO07854-R00-AMD.PDF.

  3. 3.

    Embryo and gamete losses, mix-ups, or damage cases are beyond the scope of this chapter; however, it should be noted that in the event of any such cases, the measure of damages for oncofertility patients who cannot readily replace any lost, damaged, discarded, or misused genetic material is likely to be higher than other scenarios. Both reported cases and damages amounts are difficult to identify since most cases are resolved through confidential settlement agreements.

  4. 4.

    UPA 2017 has been adopted in whole or in part by Washington state and Vermont, is under consideration in several state legislatures and in April, 2018 was endorsed unanimously by the National Child Support Enforcement Association [NCSEA], Resolution Endorsing Uniform Parentage Act (2017), 4/26/18; for text, information, and updates see 7 http://www.uniformlaws.org/.

  5. 5.

    See Astrue v. Capato, 566 U.S. 541, 555 (2012) for examples of state statutes addressing inheritance rights for children conceived posthumously.

  6. 6.

    Examples of states with such legislation include: CA, CT (only as to birth certificates), DC, IL, ME, NJ, NV, WA; examples of states with similar frameworks developed through judicial decisions rather than legislation, include MA, CT (only as to agreements) and, to a less comprehensive extent, PA.

  7. 7.

    Some examples include IL, HI, KS, MA and NC. However, every surrogacy case, even within a state, can be very fact and circumstance-specific, and parties should consult with experienced legal counsel before proceeding.

  8. 8.

    Michigan Surrogate Parenting Act, § 722.857(2) (1988), “A person other than an unemancipated minor female or a female diagnosed as being intellectually disabled or as having a mental illness or developmental disability who enters into, induces, arranges, procures, or otherwise assists in the formation of a contract described in subsection (1) is guilty of a felony punishable by a fine of not more than $50,000.00 or imprisonment for not more than 5 years, or both.”; N.Y. Dom. Rel. § 123, “No person or other entity shall knowingly request, accept, receive, pay or give any fee, compensation or other remuneration, directly or indirectly, in connection with any surrogate parenting contract, or induce, arrange or otherwise assist in arranging a surrogate parenting contract for a fee, compensation or other remuneration, except for (a) payments in connection with the adoption of a child permitted by 7 subdivision six of section three hundred seventy-four of the social services law and disclosed pursuant to 7 subdivision eight of section one hundred fifteen of this chapter; or (b) payments for reasonable and actual medical fees and hospital expenses for artificial insemination or in vitro fertilization services incurred by the mother in connection with the birth of the child.”

  9. 9.

    While the number is likely to increase as states consider adopting UPA 2017 in whole or in part, current states with statutes clarifying an egg donor is not a parent include: CA, CO, CT, FL, LA, ND, NY, OK, OR, TX, UT, VA, WA, WY.

  10. 10.

    See, e.g., ALA. CODE §22-8-4 to 6 (authorizing minors at least 14 years old to consent to any medical treatment; authorizing all minors to consent to treatment related to pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, as well as chemical dependency); CAL. FAMILY CODE §6920–§6929 (authorizing minors at least 15 years old to consent to most medical treatment; authorizing minors at least 12 years old to consent to certain treatments for mental health, substance abuse, as well as the diagnosis and treatment of rape and of communicable diseases); MD. CODE ANN., HEALTH-GEN. §20-101-104, (authorizing minors at least 17 years old to consent to treatment of substance abuse, sexually transmitted diseases, pregnancy, contraception, and rape exams; authorizing minors at least 16 years old to consent to treatment of mental or emotional issues).

  11. 11.

    For an example of such a parental request for an incompetent, adult patient, see Greer et al., “Case 21-2010: A Request for Retrieval of Oocytes from a 36-Year-Old Woman with Anoxic Brain Injury.” N Engl J Med 2010;363:276-83. The author has been involved in several such requests on behalf of minors and incompetent adults that were resolved without reported or published litigation.

References

  1. Oktay K, et al. Fertility preservation in patients with cancer: ASCO clinical practice guideline update. J Clin Oncol. 2018;36(19):1994–2001. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2018.78.1914. Epub 2018 Apr 5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Crockin S, Jones HW Jr. Legal conceptions: the evolving law and policy of assisted reproductive technologies. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press; 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Zhang S. A woman gave birth from an embryo frozen for 24 years. The Atlantic. 2017 Dec 21.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Crockin S, Jones HW Jr. Legal conceptions: the evolving law and policy of assisted reproductive technologies. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press; 2010. p. 20–73275–300.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Beauchamp T, Childress J. Principles of biomedical ethics. 7th ed. Nova York: Oxford University Press; 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Robbennolt J. Advancing the rights of children and adolescents to be altruistic: bone marrow donation by minors. J Law Health. 1995;9:213218–21; Bonner v. Moran, 126 F.2d 121, 123 (D.C. Cir. 1941).

    Google Scholar 

  7. ASRM. Practice committee, mature oocyte cryopreservation: a guideline. Fertil Steril. 2013;99, 37(1)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Argyle CE, Harper JC, Davies MC. Oocyte cryopreservation: where are we now? Hum Reprod Update. 2016;22(4):440.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Noyes N, Boldt J, Nagy ZP. Oocyte cryopreservation: is it time to remove its experimental label? J Assist Reprod Genet. 2010;27:69.

    Google Scholar 

  10. ASRM. Practice committee, ovarian tissue cryopreservation: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2014;101(5):1237.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Del. Code tit. 18 §§ 3342(i), 3556(i).

    Google Scholar 

  12. Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 38a-509, 38a-536.

    Google Scholar 

  13. R.I. Gen. Laws §§ 27-18-30, 27-19-23, 27-20-20, 27-41-33.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Md. Code, Ins., § 15-810.1.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Del. Code Ann. tit. 18 §§ 3342(i), 3556(i).

    Google Scholar 

  16. Faden R, Beauchamp T. A history and theory of informed consent. New York: Oxford University Press; 1986. p. 119–20.

    Google Scholar 

  17. ASRM. Practice committee, revised minimum standards for practices offering assisted reproductive technologies: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2014;102(3):682.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Cal. Pen. Code § 367g.

    Google Scholar 

  19. ASRM. Ethics committee, fertility preservation and reproduction in patients facing gonadotoxic therapies: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2013;100(5):1224.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Findley v. Lee, No. FDI-13-780539, 2016 WL 270083 (Cal. Super. Ct. January 11, 2016) (final divorce judgment on reserved issues entered July 26, 2016); McQueen v. Gadberry, 507 S.W.3d 127 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016).

    Google Scholar 

  21. Cal. Health & Safety Code § 125315.

    Google Scholar 

  22. www.asrm.org (section accessible only to professional members).

    Google Scholar 

  23. Crockin S. The “embryo” wars: at the epicenter of science, law, religion, and politics. Fam Law Q. 2005;39:599.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Davis v. Davis, 842 S.W.2d 588 (Tenn. 1992).

    Google Scholar 

  25. Davis v. Davis, 842 S.W.2d 604 (Tenn. 1992).

    Google Scholar 

  26. Crockin S, Jones HW Jr. Legal conceptions: the evolving law and policy of assisted reproductive technologies. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press; 2010. p. 20–73.

    Google Scholar 

  27. A.Z. v. B.Z., 725 N.E.2d 1051 (Mass. 2000).

    Google Scholar 

  28. J.B. v. M.B., 783 A.2d 707 (N.J. 2001).

    Google Scholar 

  29. J.B. v. M.B., 783 A.2d 717 (N.J. 2001).

    Google Scholar 

  30. Reber v. Reiss, 42 A. 3d 1131 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2012).

    Google Scholar 

  31. Reber v. Reiss, 42 A. 3d 1136 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2012).

    Google Scholar 

  32. Reber v. Reiss, 42 A. 3d 1142 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2012).

    Google Scholar 

  33. Szafranksi v. Dunston, 34 N.E.3d 1132 (Ill. App. 2015).

    Google Scholar 

  34. Szafranksi v. Dunston, 34 N.E.3d 1144 (Ill. App. 2015).

    Google Scholar 

  35. Szafranksi v. Dunston, 34 N.E.3d 1148-53 (Ill. App. 2015).

    Google Scholar 

  36. Szafranksi v. Dunston, 34 N.E.3d 1161-63 (Ill. App. 2015).

    Google Scholar 

  37. Findley v. Lee, No. FDI-13-780539, 2016 WL 270083 (Cal. Super. Ct. January 11, 2016), (final divorce judgment on reserved issues entered July 26, 2016).

    Google Scholar 

  38. Model Uniform Parentage Act §707(a) (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  39. Model Uniform Parentage Act §707(b) (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  40. Cohen G, Adashi E. Personhood and the three branches of government. New Eng J Med. 2018;378:2453. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp1801940.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-318.03(A).

    Google Scholar 

  42. Alltucker K. Cancer survivor battling ex-husband ordered to destroy embryos. Azcentral. 1 Sept 2017. https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona-health/2017/08/31/cancer-battling-arizona-woman-ex-husband-ordered-donate-fertilized-embryos/617118001/.

  43. ASRM. Ethics committee, posthumous retrieval and use of gametes or embryos: an ethics committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2018;110(1):45.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Estate of Kievernagel, 166 Cal. App. 4th 1024 (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  45. Estate of Kievernagel, 166 Cal. App. 4th 1032–3 (2008) (citing Hecht v. Superior Court, 16 Cal. App. 4th 836, 850) (1993)).

    Google Scholar 

  46. Hecht v. Superior Court, 16 Cal. App. 4th 836 (1993).

    Google Scholar 

  47. Hecht v. Superior Court, 16 Cal. App. 4th 840 (1993).

    Google Scholar 

  48. Hecht v. Superior Court, 16 Cal. App. 4th 841 (1993).

    Google Scholar 

  49. Hecht v. Superior Court, 16 Cal. App. 4th 858–9 (1993).

    Google Scholar 

  50. Astrue v. Capato, 566 U.S. 541 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  51. Astrue v. Capato, 566 U.S. 556 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  52. Astrue v. Capato, 566 U.S. 558–9 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  53. Woodward v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 435 Mass. 536, 552 (2002).

    Google Scholar 

  54. Woodward v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 435 Mass. 536, 552–3 (2002).

    Google Scholar 

  55. Eng Khabbaz v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 930 A.2d.1180 (N.H. 2007).

    Google Scholar 

  56. Model Uniform Parentage Act §708(b) (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  57. https://www.creativefamilyconnections.com/us-surrogacy-law-map/.

  58. 750 Ill. Comp. Stat. § 47/1, et seq. (Gestational Surrogacy Act).

    Google Scholar 

  59. New Jersey Gestational Carrier Agreement Act, 2018 N.J. Sess. Law Serv. Ch. 18 (SENATE 482) (WEST); D.C. Code § 16-406.

    Google Scholar 

  60. N.Y. S.B. S17A (introduced 2017–2018 legislative session) (currently in committee).

    Google Scholar 

  61. Crockin S, Debele G. Ethical issues in assisted reproduction. J Am Acad Matrimonial Attorneys. 2015;27:289–357, at. 320–1.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Crockin S, Jones HW Jr. Legal conceptions: the evolving law and policy of assisted reproductive technologies. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press; 2010. p. 132–87.

    Google Scholar 

  63. ASRM. Practice committee, recommendations for gamete and embryo donation: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2013;99(1):47.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Model Uniform Parentage Act §702 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  65. N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs, §§ 52-8.7, 52-8.8 (2000).

    Google Scholar 

  66. ASRM. Practice committee, recommendations for gamete and embryo donation: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2013;99(1):47; ASRM. Ethics committee, interests, obligations, and rights in gamete donation: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2014;102(3):675.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Crockin S. Legal issues related to parenthood after cancer. JNCI Monogr. 2005;2005(34):111.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Levine J. Preserving fertility in children and adolescents with cancer. Children (Basel). 2014;1(2):166.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Davi L, Goel S. Fertility preservation through gonadal cryopreservation. Reprod Med Biol. 2016;15(4):235.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Skinner v. Oklahoma, ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535 (1942).

    Google Scholar 

  71. An Overview of Minors’ Consent Law. https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/overview-minors-consent-law. Accessed 10 July 2018.

  72. E.g., Bellotti v. Baird, 443 U.S. 622 (1979) (as to abortion).

    Google Scholar 

  73. Dolin G, Roberts D, Rodriguez L, Woodruff T. Medical hope, legal pitfalls: potential legal issues in the emerging field of oncofertility. In:Oncofertility: ethical, legal, social and medical perspectives. New York: Springer; 2010. p. 109–32.

    Google Scholar 

  74. American Association of Paediatricians Committee on Bioethics. Informed consent, parental permission, and assent in pediatric practice. Pediatrics. 1995;95:314. Available at http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/pediatrics/95/2/314.full.pdf.

  75. Robbennolt J. Advancing the rights of children and adolescents to be altruistic: bone marrow donation by minors. J Law Health. 1995;9:213222–3.

    Google Scholar 

  76. Robbennolt J. Advancing the rights of children and adolescents to be altruistic: bone marrow donation by minors. J Law Health. 1995;9, 213221–2

    Google Scholar 

  77. Robbennolt J. Advancing the rights of children and adolescents to be altruistic: bone marrow donation by minors. J Law Health. 1995;9:213226.

    Google Scholar 

  78. Greer DM, et al. Case 21–2010: a request for retrieval of oocytes from a 36-year-old woman with anoxic brain injury. N Engl J Med. 2010;363:276–83.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Georgetown U. Law Center, O’Neill Center for National & Global Health Law, Washington, DC, USA

    Susan L. Crockin

Authors
  1. Susan L. Crockin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Susan L. Crockin .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Northwestern University , Chicago, IL, USA

    Teresa K. Woodruff

  2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA

    Divya K. Shah

  3. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY, USA

    Wendy S. Vitek

Review Questions and Answers

Review Questions and Answers

  1. Q1.

    What are the key differences in informed consent and contracts and the role each plays in assisted reproduction?

  2. A1.

    Increasingly, embryo or gamete disposition decisions are viewed as contractual decisions, and agreements recorded between two patients may be more protective of their choices, and less likely to be subject to a change of mind, than a traditional informed consent process and document.

  3. Q2.

    How is fertility preservation legally different for minor than adult patients?

  4. A2.

    Given minors’ general lack of capacity to legally consent, parental consent must be limited to the minor patient’s best interests and protocols should offer more limited posthumous options than adults.

  5. Q3.

    How should oncofertility patients considering surrogacy or other third-party assisted reproduction be counseled?

  6. A3.

    Given the complexities and variability inherent in this process; physicians should stress the importance of patients relying on experienced, ethical, objective, and jurisdictionally appropriate legal professionals, recognizing that international arrangements add increased uncertainties around immigration, citizenship, genetic make-up, and health costs.

  7. Q4.

    Legally, how can the consent process for adult fertility preservation patients be enhanced?

  8. A4.

    Given advances in egg freezing, moving counseling and informed consent from couples counseling and consenting around embryo freezing, to individual counseling, decisionmaking, and consenting around the relative legal and medical advantages of freezing embryos or gametes will enhance future family-building protections.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Crockin, S.L. (2019). Legal Issues in Oncofertility Treatment. In: Woodruff, T., Shah, D., Vitek, W. (eds) Textbook of Oncofertility Research and Practice. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02868-8_28

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02868-8_28

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-02867-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-02868-8

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation