Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 20 views

    Pi Is 0015028299003623

    Uploaded by

    pogimuda
    This document contains a response to criticism of an article analyzing an ABA report on embryo disposition policy. It summarizes and defends the article's interpretation of statements in the ABA report. Specifically, it argues that the report justified allowing unilateral implantation decisions based on the high costs of IVF procedures. It also argues the report advanced a flawed analogy between embryo disposition and legal concepts like adoption or artificial insemination that do not consider genetic parenthood responsibilities. The response concludes by stating the legal analysis of parental rights is too narrow and fails to consider moral responsibilities involved in genetic parenthood.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Pi Is 0015028299003623

    Uploaded by

    pogimuda
    20 views1 page
    This document contains a response to criticism of an article analyzing an ABA report on embryo disposition policy. It summarizes and defends the article's interpretation of statements in the ABA report. Specifically, it argues that the report justified allowing unilateral implantation decisions based on the high costs of IVF procedures. It also argues the report advanced a flawed analogy between embryo disposition and legal concepts like adoption or artificial insemination that do not consider genetic parenthood responsibilities. The response concludes by stating the legal analysis of parental rights is too narrow and fails to consider moral responsibilities involved in genetic parenthood.

    Original Description:

    obdgyn

    Original Title

    Pi is 0015028299003623

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document contains a response to criticism of an article analyzing an ABA report on embryo disposition policy. It summarizes and defends the article's interpretation of statements in the ABA report. Specifically, it argues that the report justified allowing unilateral implantation decisions based on the high costs of IVF procedures. It also argues the report advanced a flawed analogy between embryo disposition and legal concepts like adoption or artificial insemination that do not consider genetic parenthood responsibilities. The response concludes by stating the legal analysis of parental rights is too narrow and fails to consider moral responsibilities involved in genetic parenthood.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    20 views1 page

    Pi Is 0015028299003623

    Uploaded by

    pogimuda
    This document contains a response to criticism of an article analyzing an ABA report on embryo disposition policy. It summarizes and defends the article's interpretation of statements in the ABA report. Specifically, it argues that the report justified allowing unilateral implantation decisions based on the high costs of IVF procedures. It also argues the report advanced a flawed analogy between embryo disposition and legal concepts like adoption or artificial insemination that do not consider genetic parenthood responsibilities. The response concludes by stating the legal analysis of parental rights is too narrow and fails to consider moral responsibilities involved in genetic parenthood.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 1

    bringing the frozen embryo to term should not be a difficult embryos against the wishes of one of the gamete

    e gamete providers.”
    one. It does not involve concepts fundamentally different Second, the Report states that couples who “undergo expen-
    than those underlying single parent adoption, single parent- sive” IVF procedures “in the reasonable anticipation of [cre-
    hood by artificial insemination, state laws governing artifi- ating a child] . . . should not then be required to undergo
    cial insemination, and those embodied in the Uniform Status additional procedures . . . to re-exert a right to procreate.”
    of Children of Assisted Conception Act. Indeed, while not- These quotations from the Report justify our statement that
    ing its view that under New York law “there does not appear its authors argue that the exorbitant price of IVF is a reason
    to be any enforceable means of waiving support obligations, to allow unilateral decisions to implant.
    even with the consent of the other parent,” the dissenting
    Next, Dr. Wilder claims we have misread the Report and
    opinion in the Kass appeal states, “A strong case can be
    describe an analogy never advanced by its authors. The
    made for legislation relieving the objectant of unwanted
    Report states: “the issue of termination and relinquishment
    parenthood by treating him as a sperm donor in cases such as
    of parental rights and responsibilities . . . [d]oes not involve
    this.”
    concepts fundamentally different than those underlying sin-
    That paragraph deals specifically with the issue of relin- gle parent adoption, single parenthood by artificial insemi-
    quishment of parental rights and obligations in a particular nation, [etc].” The paragraph that Wilder quotes describes
    set of circumstances and not with the broader issue of the flawed analogy precisely. Wilder has missed our point—
    “concepts involved with the unilateral use of frozen embryos.” that the termination of rights and responsibilities in the case
    Perhaps only after the legal issue of parental rights and of unilateral embryo use—is very different from the rights
    obligations when an embryo is brought to term without the involved with single parent adoption and single parenthood
    consent of a divorced or deceased biological parent is re- by artificial insemination. Not only is the intent of the parties
    solved to relieve that person of liability, will we really be different, we believe there is something beyond legal rights
    able to examine in a meaningful way the scope and limits of and responsibilities at stake. There is a moral responsibility
    the rights to procreate or not to procreate when a couple later that accompanies genetic parenthood. A person who argues
    disagrees about the disposition of their frozen embryos. against implantation may not simply be concerned with the
    legal responsibilities of parenthood, he/she may not want to
    Bruce Wilder, M.D., J.D. become a genetic parent against his/her will.
    Wilder Mahood & Crenney, P.C.
    Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Wilder concludes that when the “legal issue of parental
    June 10, 1999 rights and obligations” is resolved, the limits of the rights of
    Reference procreational autonomy can be meaningfully examined. This
    1. Forster H, Donley C, Slomka J. Comment on ABA’s proposed frozen narrow view of the law of parental rights as the answer to the
    embryo disposition policy. Fertil Steril 1999;71:994 –5. issue of embryo disposition interferes with an analysis of the
    PII S0015-0282(99)00370-2
    moral rights and responsibilities of parenthood.
    Heidi Forster, J.D.
    Case Western Reserve University
    Reply of the Authors: School of Law
    School of Medicine (Center for Biomedical Ethics)
    We thank Dr. Wilder for his comments. We do, however, Cleveland, Ohio
    object to his claim that our article contains misstatements
    regarding the Section of Family Law Report which sup- Jacquelyn Slomka, Ph.D., R.N.
    Cleveland Clinic Foundation
    ported the American Bar Association’s proposed embryo
    Department of Bioethics
    disposition policy.
    Cleveland, Ohio
    Although the Report does not contain the words “exorbi-
    tant IVF price tag,” that phrase was our interpretation of Carol Donley, Ph.D.
    Hiram College
    references to the high-cost of IVF. First, in a discussion of
    Center for Literature, Medicine, and the Health Care
    the Davis case (where the Tennessee Supreme Court gave
    Professions
    embryo control to the gamete donor who did not wish to Hiram, Ohio
    procreate), the Report’s authors criticize the court for not June 18, 1999
    considering the “financial aspects of IVF . . . nor . . . the fi-
    nancial . . . consequences of the destruction of frozen human PII S0015-0282(99)00369-6

    FERTILITY & STERILITY威 953

    You might also like