Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Embryo Donation: Ethical Issues

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Third-Party Reproduction

  • 904 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter explores the novel ethical and legal questions resulting from the ability to cryopreserve embryos for future use. Individuals or couples may discard the embryos, donate the embryos to another couple for reproduction, donate the embryos to research, or freeze the embryos indefinitely. Occasionally, couples cannot agree and may face legal battles regarding embryo disposition or parentage. In other cases, clinic negligence results in embryo destruction, loss, mix-up, or misuse. We discuss these issues, as well as the growing concern over access to the technology, long-term storage, and the impact on future-born children, including commercialization and the creation of designer babies.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
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

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The formal definition of an “embryo” is “the developing human organism from approximately 14 days after fertilization of the egg by the sperm until the period when organs and organ systems begin to develop, at approximately the end of the second month” [1, p7]. Some people use the term “preembryo” to refer to the organism before 14 days (when it is technically a zygote). Others use the term “embryo” to cover the entire period of time after fertilization.

  2. 2.

    The Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology (SART) and ASRM adopted the 2012 Recommendations. For brevity, this chapter will only refer to ASRM, even if both ASRM and SART adopted guidelines.

  3. 3.

    Progenitors include the sperm and egg donor.

References

  1. Daar JF. Reproductive technologies and the law. Newark: LexisNexis/Matthew Bender; 2006. 7, 599–682, 776.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine; Practice Committee of the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. Recommendations for gamete and embryo donation: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2013;99(1):47–62. http://www.asrm.org/uploadedFiles/ASRM_Content/News_and_Publications/Practice_Guidelines/Guidelines_and_Minimum_Standards/2008_Guidelines_for_gamete(1).pdf.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Caplan AL, Patrizio P. Are you ever too old to have a baby? The ethical challenges of older women using infertility services. Semin Reprod Med. 2010;28(4):281–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Bakalar N. In vitro fertilization, 1974. The New York Times (N.Y. edition). 2011 Mar 22;Sect. D:7.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Hoffman DI, Zellman GL, Fair CC, Mayer JF, Zeitz JG, Gibbons WE, et al. Cryopreserved embryos in the United States and their availability for research. Fertil Steril. 2003;79(5):1063–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Lyerly AD, Steinhauser K, Voils C, Namey E, Alexander C, Bankowski B, et al. Fertility patients’ views about frozen embryo disposition: results of a multi-institutional U.S. survey. Fertil Steril. 2010;93(2):499–509.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Clark PA. Embryo donation/adoption: medical, legal and ethical perspectives. Internet J Law Healthc Ethics 2009 [cited 2012 Nov 1]; 5(2):[about 12 pages]. doi:10.5580/22df. Available from: http://www.ispub.com/journal/the-internet-journal-of-law-healthcare-and-ethics/volume-5-number-2/embryo-donation-adoption-medical-legal-and-ethical-perspectives.html

  8. Kindregan CP, McBrien M. Embryo donation: unresolved legal issues in the transfer of surplus cryopreserved embryos. Villanova Law Rev. 2004;49:169–206.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [Internet]. Atlanta: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; [date unknown]. Multiples and assisted reproductive technology—considering elective single embryo transfers; [updated 2012 Jan 27; cited 2012 Nov 1]; [about 2 screens]. Available from: http://www.cdc.gov/art/preparingforart/eset.htm

  10. Kindregan CP, McBrien M. Assisted reproductive technology: a lawyer’s guide to emerging law and science. 2nd ed. Chicago: American Bar Association; 2011. p. 121–50.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Lazendorf S, Ratts V, Keller S, Odem R. Disposition of cryopreserved embryos by infertility patients desiring to discontinue storage. Fertil Steril. 2010;93(2):486–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Crockin SL, Jones HW. Legal conceptions: the evolving law and policy of assisted reproductive technologies. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press; 2010. 30, 46, 50–52.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Nachtigall RD, Mac Dougall K, Lee M, Harrington J, Becker G. What do patients want? Expectations and perceptions of IVF clinic information and support regarding frozen embryo disposition. Fertil Steril. 2010;94(6):2069–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Birmingham: American Society for Reproductive Medicine; c1996-2012. Preparing for IVF: emotional considerations; [cited 2012 Nov 1]; [about 2 screens]. Available from: http://www.asrm.org/detail.aspx?id=1902

  15. Litowitz v. Litowitz, 48 P.3d 261, 271 (Wash. 2002).

    Google Scholar 

  16. Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Disposition of abandoned embryos. Fertil Steril. 2004;82 Suppl 1:S253.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Gurmankin AD, Sisti D, Caplan AL. Embryo disposal practices in IVF clinics in the United States. Politics Life Sci. 2004;22(2):4–8.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Brzyski RG, Binkley PA, Pierce JD, Eddy CA. Impact of implementation of an embryo storage fee on embryo disposal activity. Fertil Steril. 2000;74(4):813–5.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Fla. Stat. Ann. §§ 742.13(2), 742.14, 742.17(3) (West 2010); Fla. Stat. Ann. § 742.14, unconstitutional as applied by T.M.H. v. D.M.T. 79 So. 3d 787 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App 2011).

    Google Scholar 

  20. Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine; Practice Committee of the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. Elements to be considered in obtaining informed consent for ART. Fertil Steril. 2006;86 Suppl 4:S272–3.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Hum Fertilisation & Embryology Auth [Internet]. London: Hum Fertilisation & Embryology Auth; [date unknown]. New arrangements for the storage of gametes & embryos; [updated 2009 Sep 11; cited 2012 Nov 1]; [about 3 screens]. Available from: http://www.hfea.gov.uk/5354.html

  22. Edwards RG, Beard HK. Destruction of cryopreserved embryos: UK law dictated the destruction of 3000 cryopreserved embryos. Hum Reprod. 1997;12(1):3–5.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Frith L, Blyth E, Paul MS, Berger R. Conditional embryo relinquishment: choosing to relinquish embryos for family-building through a Christian embryo ‘adoption’ programme. Hum Reprod. 2011;26(12):3327–38.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Informing offspring of their conception by gamete donation. Fertil Steril. 2004;81(3):527–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Cahn N. The new kinship. Georget Law J. 2012;100(2):367–429.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Ravitsky V. “Knowing where you come from”: the rights of donor-conceived individuals and the meaning of genetic relatedness. Minn J Law Sci Technol. 2010;11(2):655–84.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Dennison M. Revealing your sources: the case for non-anonymous gamete donation. J Law Health. 2008;21:1–27.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Donor Sibling Registry [Internet]. Nederland (CO): Donor Sibling Registry; c2000-12 [cited 2012 Nov 1]. Available from: https://www.donorsiblingregistry.com/

  29. Blyth E, Frith L. Donor-conceived people’s access to genetic and biographical history: an analysis of provisions in different jurisdictions permitting disclosure of donor identity. Int J Law Policy Fam. 2009;23:174–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Bernstein G. Regulating reproductive technologies: timing, uncertainty, and donor anonymity. Boston Univ Law Rev. 2010;90(3):1189–219.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Blyth E, Frith L, Paul MS, Berger R. Embryo relinquishment for family building: how should it be conceptualized? Int J Law Policy Fam. 2011;25(2):260–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. American society for reproductive medicine: defining embryo donation. Fertil Steril. 2009;92(6):1818–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Ga. Code Ann. §§ 19-8-40 to 43 (West 2010).

    Google Scholar 

  34. Loutradi KE, Kolibianakis EM, Venetis CA, Papanikolaou EG, Pados G, Bontis I, et al. Cryopreservation of human embryos by vitrification or slow freezing: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil Steril. 2008;90(1):186–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Population Affairs [Internet]. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Health & Human Services; [date unknown]. Embryo adoption; [cited 2012 Nov 1]; [about 3 screens]. Available from: http://www.hhs.gov/opa/about-opa-and-initiatives/embryo-adoption/#funding

  36. Daar J. Federalizing embryo transfers: taming the wild west of reproductive medicine? Columbia J Gend Law. 2012;23(2):257–325.

    Google Scholar 

  37. U.S. Food and Drug Administration [Internet]. Silver Spring (MD): U.S. Food & Drug Administration; [date unknown]. Guidance for industry: eligibility determination for donors of human cells, tissues, and cellular and tissue-based products (HCT/Ps); 2007 Aug [last updated 2012 Apr 19; cited 2012 Nov 1]; [about 5 screens]. Available from: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/BiologicsBloodVaccines/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/Tissue/ucm091345.pdf

  38. Donor Eligibility, 21 C.F.R. Sect. 1271.90 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  39. N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 10, § 52-8.7(i) (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  40. Okla. Stat. tit. 10, § 556-A.1 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  41. Nightlight [Internet]. [Place unknown]: Nightlight, Inc.; [date unknown]. Snowflakes Embryo Adoption Program. Information for Adopting Parents; [reviewed 2011 Apr 27; cited 2012 Nov 1]; [about 13 pages]. Available from: http://www.nightlight.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Snowflakes-facts.pdf

  42. American Society for Reproductive Medicine [Internet]. Birmingham: American Society for Reproductive Medicine; c2012 [cited 2012 Nov 1]. Third-party reproduction (sperm, egg, and embryo donation and surrogacy): a guide for patients revised 2012; [about 20 pages]. Available from: http://www.asrm.org/uploadedFiles/ASRM_Content/Resources/Patient_Resources/Fact_Sheets_and_Info_Booklets/thirdparty.pdf

  43. Fisseha S. A match made in heaven: Posthumous fatherhood and postmenopausal motherhood. Virtual Mentor: Am Med Assoc J Ethics [Internet]. 2007 Sep [cited 2012 Nov 1];9(9):630–634. Available from: http://virtualmentor.ama-assn.org/2007/09/pfor1-709.html

  44. Robertson JA. Embryo stem cell research: ten years of controversy. J Law Med Ethics. 2010;38(2):191–203.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Ertman M. The upside of baby markets. In: Goodwin MB, editor. Baby markets: money and the new politics of creating families. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2010. p. 23–40.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  46. Stein R. ‘Embryo bank’ stirs ethics fears. The Washington Post [Internet]. 2007 Jan 6 [cited 2012 Nov 1]:[about 2 pages]. Available from: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/05/AR2007010501953.html

  47. Eworldwire [Internet]. San Antonio: Eworldwire; c1996-2012 Abraham Center for Life no longer in embryo business; 2007 May 30 [cited 2012 Nov 1]; [about 3 screens]. Available from: http://www.eworldwire.com/pressrelease/17092

  48. Zarembo A. Los Angeles Times [internet]. Los Angeles: Los Angeles Times; c2013. An ethics debate over embryos on the cheap. 2012 Nov 19 [cited 2013 May 22]; [about 2 pages]. Available at http://articles.latimes.com/2012/Nov/19/local/la-me-embryo-20121120

    Google Scholar 

  49. Nightlight [Internet]. [Place unknown]: Nightlight; [date unknown]. Embryo adoption FAQs; [cited 2012 Nov 1]; [about 2 screens]. Available from: http://www.nightlight.org/faqs/

  50. RESOLVE: The National Infertility Association [Internet]. McLean: RESOLVE; [date unknown]. Embryo donation: myths and facts; [cited 2012 Nov 1]; [about 4 screens]. Available from: http://www.resolve.org/family-building-options/donor-options/embryo-donation-myth-and-facts.html

  51. Am Bar Ass’n Model Act Governing Assisted Reprod Tech. §§ 102(33), 501, 602–606, 802; art. 7(2008).

    Google Scholar 

  52. Ind. Code Ann. § 35-46-5-3(b)-(c)(1) (West 2012).

    Google Scholar 

  53. Rochman, B. Time [Internet]. [Place unknown]: Time; [date unknown]. Baby contest: Couples compete for free IVF – is this exploitation or generosity? 2012 June 19 [cited 2012 Nov 1]; [about 3 pages]. Available from: http://healthland.time.com/2012/06/19/fertile-ground-couples-compete-for-free-ivf-exploitation-or-generosity/

  54. Fiore K. ABC News [Internet]. [Place unknown]: ABC News; [date unknown]. IVF lottery raises eyebrows in UK. 2011 Jul 8 [cited 2012 Nov 1]; [about 3 pages]. Available from: http://abcnews.go.com/Health/ivf-lottery-raises-eyebrows-uk/story?id=14021901

  55. Jain T, Missmer SA. Support for selling embryos among fertility patients. Fertil Steril. 2008; 90(3):564–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Dean Lindsey Cowen Research Fellow, Case Western Reserve University School of Law, 11075 East Boulevard, Cleveland, OH, 44106, USA

    Stephanie O. Corley J.D.

  2. Case Western Reserve University School of Law, 11075 E. Boulevard, Cleveland, OH, 44106, USA

    Jessica Wilen Berg J.D., M.P.H.

Authors
  1. Stephanie O. Corley J.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jessica Wilen Berg J.D., M.P.H.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stephanie O. Corley J.D. .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University Hospitals of Cleveland Case Western Reserve University, Director of Fertility Services and In Vitro Fertilization, Cleveland, Ohio, USA

    James M. Goldfarb

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Corley, S.O., Berg, J.W. (2014). Embryo Donation: Ethical Issues. In: Goldfarb, J. (eds) Third-Party Reproduction. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7169-1_12

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7169-1_12

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4614-7168-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4614-7169-1

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation