Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Sperm, Egg, and a Petri Dish Unveiling the Underlying Property Issues Surrounding Cryopreserved Embryos

2006; Taylor & Francis; Volume: 27; Issue: 2 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1080/01947640600716408

1521-057X

Laura S. Langley, Joseph W. Blackston,

Reproductive Health and Technologies

Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size Ms. Langley would like to extend special thanks to Dr. Sopelak for her willingness to share her vast knowledge on in vitro fertilization. Notes 1 George J. Annas, Ulysses and the Fate of Frozen Embryos—Reproduction, Research, or Destruction, ?, 343 New Eng. J. Med. 373 (2000). 2 Luigi Brandimarte, Sperm Plus Egg Equals One “Boiled” Debate: Kass v. Kass and the Fate of the Frozen Pre-Zygotes, 17 N.Y.L. Sch. J. Hum. Rts. 767, 775-81 (2000). 3 Diane K. Yang, Comment, What's Mine Is Mine, but What's Yours Should Also Be Mine: An Analysis of State Statutes that Mandate the Implantation of Frozen Preembryos, 10 J.L. & Pol'y 587, 588-89 (2002). 4 See Ellen A. Waldman, Disputing Over Embryos: Of Contracts and Consents, 32 Ariz. St. L.J. 897, 901-03 (2000) (discussing IVF's role as the oldest and most well-known reproductive technology). 5 See id. at 901-02. 6 Id. at 906. 7 Id. at 182-84. At the other extreme, CNN published an interview with reporter Connie Chung and a couple working with an embryologist to use reproductive advances to clone the wife, via manipulating a donor egg, and have a surrogate mother attempt to give birth to the resulting clone.Footnote 12 8 No. 01 CV00502, slip op. (D.D.C. Mar. 8, 2001). 9 Robert E. McGough, A Case for Federal Funding of Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research: The Interplay of Moral Absolutism and Scientific Research, 18 J. Contemp. Health L. & Pol'y 147, 182 (2001) (discussing the Nightlight case). 10 Id. at 182. 11 Id. at 183 (citing Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)). 12 Couple Plan to Clone a Baby, CNN. com, Aug. 13, 2002, at http://www.cnn.com/2002/HEALTH/08/13/cloned.birth.cnn. 13 Dorland's Illustrated Medical Dictionary 542 (28th ed. 1994); id. at 1346 (defining “preembryo”); id. at 1351 (defining “prezygote”); id. at 1859 (defining “zygote”). 14 See A.Z. v. B.Z., 725 N.E.2d 1051 (Mass. 2000) (using “preembryo”); J.B. v. M.B., 783 A.2d 707 (N.J. 2001) (using “preembryo”); Kass v. Kass, 696 N.E.2d 174 (N.Y. 1998) (using “pre-zygote”); Davis v. Davis, 842 S.W.2d 588 (Tenn. 1992) (using “preembryo”); York v. Jones, 717 F. Supp. 421 (E.D. Va. 1989) (using “pre-zygotes”); Litowitz v. Litowitz, 48 P.3d 261 (Wash. 2002) (using “preembyro”); Ethics Comm. Am. Fertility Soc'y, Ethical Considerations of the New Reproductive Technologies, 53 Fertility & Sterility 31S-33S (1990) [hereinafter Am. Fertility Soc'y] (using “preembryo”); Stedman's Medical Dictionary 581 (27th ed. 2000) [hereinafter Stedman's] (only defining “embryo,” not “preembryo” or “prezygote”); Dorland's, supra note 13, at 1346 (defining both “embryo” and “preembryo”). 15 Arthur C. Guyton & John E. Hall, Textbook of Medical Physiology 944 (10th ed. 2000); Kelly Hollowell, Cloning: Exposing Flaws in the Preembryo-Embryo Distinction and Redefining When Life Begins, 11 Regent U.L. Rev. 319, 319-22 (1999). This issue is discussed in further detail in section IV infra. 16 See Guyton, supra note 15, at 944 (discussing the reformation of “a complete complement of 46 chromosomes” during fertilization). 17 Hollowell, supra note 15, at 327-32 (discussing all division, differentiation, and the Davis court's treatment of “preembryo”). 18 Dorland's, supra note 13, at 856 (defining “in vivo”). 19 Guyton, supra note 15, at 944. 20 Id. 21 Id. at 929-31. 22 Id. at 929. 23 Id. at 944. 24 Id. 25 Id. at 919-20. 26 Id. at 944. 27 Id. 28 Id. 29 Id. at 944-45. 30 Id. 31 Id. 32 Id. 33 Id. 34 Id. 35 Id. 36 Dorland's, supra note 13, at 1347. 37 See id. (defining “pregnancy”). 38 Daniel I. Steinberg, Note, Divergent Conceptions: Procreational Rights and Disputes Over the Fate of Frozen Embryos, 7 B.U. Pub. Int. L.J. 315, 317 (1998). 39 Id. Available statistics are several years old. 40 Id. 41 Interview with Victoria M. Sopelak, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology at University of Mississippi Medical Center (UMC), in Jackson, MS (June 11, 2002) [hereinafter Sopelak Interview]. Dr. Sopelak supervises the In Vitro Fertilization Clinic at the UMC; Brandimarte, supra note 2, at 771. 42 Dorland's, supra note 13, at 856; Brandimarte, supra note 2, at 771-72. 43 Sopelak Interview, supra note 41; Brandimarte, supra note 2, at 771. 44 Sopelak Interview, supra note 41; Brandimarte, supra note 2, at 771. 45 Sopelak Interview, supra note 41; Brandimarte, supra note 2, at 771. 46 Sopelak Interview, supra note 41; University of Mississippi Medical Center, In Vitro Fertilization Program, Unpublished Consent Forms (on file with the UMC) [hereinafter UMC Consent Forms]. 47 Sopelak Interview, supra note 41; UMC Consent Forms, supra note 46. 48 Sopelak Interview, supra note 41; UMC Consent Forms, supra note 46. 49 Stedman's, supra note 14, at 966. 50 Sopelak Interview, supra note 41; Brandimarte, supra note 2, at 771-72. 51 Sopelak Interview, supra note 41; Brandimarte, supra note 2, at 772. 52 Sopelak Interview, supra note 41. 53 Id. 54 Id. A description of cryopreservation is found in section I (C). 55 Sopelak Interview, supra note 41; Brandimarte, supra note 2, at 772. 56 Sopelak Interview, supra note 41; Brandimarte, supra note 2, at 772. 57 Sopelak Interview, supra note 41; Brandimarte, supra note 2, at 772. 58 Sopelak Interview, supra note 41; Brandimarte, supra note 2, at 772. 59 Sopelak Interview, supra note 41; Guyton, supra note 15, at 945. 60 Sopelak Interview, supra note 41; Brandimarte, supra note 2, at 772. 61 Sopelak Interview, supra note 41; Brandimarte, supra note 2, at 773; Waldman, supra note 4, at 904-05; Ethics Comm., Am. Fertility Soc'y, Ethical Considerations of Assisted Reproductive Technologies, 62 Fertility & Sterility 58S (1994) [hereinafter AFS] (finding cryopreservation an “essential component of all programs offering IVF”). The AFS became the American Society of Reproductive Medicine in 1994. 62 Sopelak Interview, supra note 40; Brandimarte, supra note 2, at 773. 63 Sopelak Interview, supra note 41; Brandimarte, supra note 2, at 773-74. 64 Sopelak Interview, supra note 41; Andrew Worek, Examining the Uncertain Legal Status of Preembryonic Human Cells, 19 Med. Malpractice L. & Strategy 1,1 (Feb. 2002). 65 Sopelak Interview, supra note 41. 66 Sopelak Interview, supra note 41; Brandimarte, supra note 2, at 773-74; Waldman, supra note 4, at 904-06. 67 Sopelak Interview, supra note 41; Brandimarte, supra note 2, at 773-74; Waldman, supra note 4, at 904-06. 68 York v. Jones, 717 F. Supp. 421, 422 (E.D. Va. 1989). 69 Id. at 422. 70 Id. at 423. The plaintiffs' constitutional claims were brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 71 York, 717 F. Supp. at 423-24. 72 Id. at 422-25. 73 Id. at 425-27. 74 Id. at 422. 75 Id. 76 Dorland's, supra note 13, at 542; see also Stedman's, supra note 14, at 581 (defining embryo as “the developing organism from conception until approximately the end of the second month”). 77 Davis v. Davis, 842 S.W.2d 588, 589-92 (Tenn. 1992). 78 Id. 79 Id. at 589-90. 80 Id. at 597. The court went through a long analysis regarding terminology and agreed with the expert testimony and AFS's argument that embryos technically should be called preembryos in the early stages of embryonic development. Thus, the Davis court used the term preembryo throughout its opinion. 81 Id. 82 Id. 83 Id. at 590. 84 Id. at 590-604. 85 Id. at 594. 86 Id. The Davis court cited the AFS Ethics Committee report: “The preembryo is due greater respect than other human tissue because of its potential to become a person and because of its symbolic meaning for many people. Yet, it should not be treated as a person, because it has not yet developed the features of personhood, is not yet established as developmentally individual, and may never realize its biological potential.” Id. at 596; see also Am. Fertility Soc'y, supra note 13, at 34S-35S. 87 Davis, 842 S.W.2d at 594-95. 88 Id. at 597. 89 Id. at 604. 90 Id. at 597. 91 Id. 92 See generally id, at 588 (using “preembryo” throughout the decision). 93 Hollowell, supra note 15, at 323. 94 See id. 95 Guyton, supra note 15, at 944. 96 Hollowell, supra note 15, at 324-33 (discussing the Davis court's adoption of the AFS's embryo/ preembryo distinction and how that distinction was developed). 97 Kass v. Kass, 696 N.E.2d 174 (N.Y. 1998). 98 Id. at 177. 99 Id. at 177-78. 100 Id. 101 Id. at 178-83. 102 Id. at 180. 103 Id. at 178-82. 104 See generally id. at 174 (using “pre-zygotes” throughout). 105 Id. at 180. 106 A.Z. v. B.Z., 725 N.E.2d 1051, 1051-54 (Mass. 2000). 107 Id. at 1053-55. 108 Id. at 1054-55. 109 Id. at 1056-57. 110 Id. at 1057-59. 111 Id. at 1055-58. 112 Id. at 1052 n.1. The AFS article relied on by this court was the same article cited above. See AFS, supra note 61. 113 J.B. v. M.B., 783 A.2d 707,709-10 (N.J. 2001). 114 Id. at 710. 115 Id. at 711. 116 Id. at 711-12. 117 Id. at 712-15. 118 Id. at 714-17. 119 Id. at 714-19. 120 Id. at 719-20. 121 Id. at 708 (citing Stedman's Medical Dictionary 667 (26th ed. 1995)). 122 See generally Stedman's, supra note 14 (failing to include a definition for either “preembryo” or “prezygote”). 123 J.B., 783 A.2d at 708 n.1. 124 Stedman's, supra note 14, at 581. 125 Litowitz v. Litowitz, 48 P.3d 261, 262-63 (Wash. 2002). 126 Id. at 263-64. 127 Id. at 264. 128 Id. at 262-64. 129 Id. at 265. 130 Id. at 265-68. 131 Id. at 268-69. 132 Id. at 270-71. 133 Id. at 261-66. 134 In re Marriage of Witten, 672 N.W.2d 768, 772 (Iowa 2003). 135 Id. 136 Id. at 772-73. 137 Id. at 773. 138 Id. at 774-75. 139 Id. at 774. 140 Id. at 776-77. 141 Id. at 777-78. 142 Id. at 779. 143 Id. at 782-83. The court also found common sense dictated any expense associated with maintaining the status quo, by keeping the embryos cryopreserved, should be borne by the person opposing destruction. Id. at 783. 144 Yang, supra note 3, at 631. 145 Id. at 605-06; see also id. at 606 n.120. 146 Id. at 605-06. 147 Jill R. Gorny, The Fate of Surplus Cryopreserved Embryos: What Is the Superior Alternative for Their Disposition?, 37 Suffolk U.L. Rev. 459, 460 (2004). 148 Kellie LaGatta, The Frozen Embryo Debate Heats Up: A Call for Federal Regulation and Legislation, 4 Fla. Coastal L.J. 99, 99-100 (2004). 149 Id. at 100. 150 Gorny, supra note 147, at 460. 151 Id. 152 Id. 153 LaGatta, supra note 148, at 99. 154 J.B. v. M.B., 783 A.2d 707, 715 (N.J. 2001). 155 Cal. Health & Safety Code § 125315 (West 1999). 156 Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 19-4-106 (West 1999). 157 Id. § 19-4-106(7)(a). 158 Id. § 19-4-106(7)(b). 159 Id. § 19-4-106(8). 160 Del. Code Ann. tit. 13, § 8-706(a). 161 Id. § 8-706(b). 162 Fla. Stat. Ann. 163 Id. 164 Helene S. Shapo, Frozen Preembryos and the Right to Change One's Mind, 12 Duke J. Comp. & Int'l L. 75, 83 (2002). 165 Id. 166 La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 9:121-9:129 (1998). 167 Brandimarte, supra note 2, at 779. 168 Id. 169 La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 9:121-9:129 (2000). Juridical is defined as “of or relating to judicial proceedings or to the administration of [the law].” Black's Law Dictionary 854 (8th ed. 2004). Among the rights afforded to juridical persons is the right to sue and be sued. However, this is inconsistent with Louisiana's criminal code, which fails to protect a “person” as a “human being” until after the “moment of fertilization and implantation.” La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 9:121-9:129 (2000). 170 La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 9:126. 171 Id. § 9:129. 172 Id. § 9:130. Specifically, this statute provides that the gamete providers can renounce their parental duties only by a notarized document and embryos are not available for adoptive implantation until such renunciation takes place. For the period between the gamete providers formally renouncing their parental rights and the time a guardian has been appointed by a court to act on behalf of the best interests of the embryo, the IVF physician is to act as the temporary guardian of the embryo and be responsible for the embryo's safekeeping. Id. § 9:126. 173 410 U.S. 113 (1973). 174 502 U.S. 1056 (1992). Missouri has incorporated a preamble into its abortion statute stating: “The life of each human being begins at conception.” This statement provides unborn children with “protectable interests in life, health, and well-being.” Mo. Ann. Stat. 175 Stanford P. Berenbaum, Davis v. Davis: Frozen Embryos and the Thawing of Procreative Liberties, 36 Wayne L. Rev. 1337, 1351 (1990). 176 Id. 177 Id. 178 Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 311.715 (West 2001). 179 Mo. Ann. Stat. § 1.205.1 (West 1993). 180 N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 168-B:1, 168-B:13-16 (2001). 181 Pa. Stat. Ann. tit. 18, § 3213 (West 2004). 182 Dorland's, supra note 13, at 542; Stedman's, supra note 14, at 581. 183 Common property is “property that is held jointly by two or more persons.” Black's, supra note 169, at 1233. 184 1 Barry R. Furrow et. al., Health Law §§ 6.9-6.11 (2d ed. 2000) (discussing the doctrine of informed consent, standards of disclosure, and factors that must be disclosed to satisfy the elements of informed consent). 185 Cal. Health & Safety Code §§ 125315(b)(1)-(4) (West 2004). The entirety of the proposed federal legislation is modeled after California's statute governing informed consent for IVF participants. 186 Id. §§ 125315(c)(1)-(7). 187 Hollowell, supra note 15, at 327-28. 188 Peter E. Malo, Deciding Custody of Frozen Embryos: Many Eggs Are Frozen but Who Is Chosen?, 3 DePaul J. Health Care L. 307, 312 (2000). 189 Hollowell, supra note 15, at 328-29. 190 Malo, supra note 188, at 312. 191 Am. Fertility Soc'y, supra note 14, at 32S. 192 Id. at 31S. 193 See id. at 31S (admitting in a footnote that ovulation time, time until fertilization cleavage note, time of implantation, and other parameters are all subject to variation and difficult to determine accurately in women). 194 Id. at 34S. 195 See La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 9:121-9:129 (2000). 196 Davis v. Davis, 842 S.W.2d 588, 597 (Tenn. 1992). 197 See generally Am. Fertility Soc'y, supra note 4, at 17S-18S, 31S-36S (recognizing three views of preembryo legal status, including the intermediate special respect perspective). 198 Malo, supra note 188, at 312-13. 199 Id. at 312. 200 Waldman, supra note 4, at 919-20. 201 Id. at 925. 202 Id. at 922-24.