Legal Implications: IVF
The intention behind laws and legal limitations is to protect people and prevent harm. Sometimes the legal limitations are influenced by a political leaders' moral beliefs which are then imposed on the society at large. The moral status of the embryo created by in vitro fertilization is often what drives the ultimate law regarding the ability to create the embryo.
What is an embryo? Does an embryo have the same rights as a human? Is it regarded as human tissue, a clump of cells? Is there a point at which the embryo’s value changes? Some individuals feel that an embryo has the same rights as any individual, while others feel it is biological material without those same rights. Those viewpoints can dictate the outcome of a court case and access to the technology.
The Catholic Church in Poland has adopted the view that embryos are potential human life, thus given the influence of the Catholic Church in Poland, the country has laws that fall in line with this moral belief including who can utilize assisted reproductive technology (ART). At this time in 2020, only heterosexual couples are able to utilize ART in Poland. This excludes individuals who plan to be single parents and same-sex couples. For those who have frozen embryos, but no mate or a same sex mate, they are not able to implant those embryos. For women, who created embryos while in a heterosexual marriage, but are now divorced, they too cannot implant those embryos. After 20 years, those embryos will be donated to a heterosexual couple. The strict laws come from the belief that human life starts at conception as well as the Catholic Church's lack of support for gay marriage.
A recent Arizona case shows the importance of contracts to avoid the possibility the case is decided based on perceived moral status of the embryo. A married couple underwent IVF and froze embryos. However, they divorced, and one member of the divorced couple wanted to use the embryos for procreation. In this court case, the contract that was initially established was being scrutinized to determine if the ex-wife had the legal right to use the embryos for her own procreation despite the ex-husband’s wishes of those embryos not being used. To her, using these embryos were her last chance at having a genetically related child. She had undergone chemotherapy which may have damaged her egg cells. Ultimately, the court ruled that the embryos could not be used without the other partner's explicit consent and upheld what was in the contract initially.
This case considers embryo ownership after a divorce and fortunately the couple had a contract of what to do in this situation. In making the decision of what to do with the embryos after a divorce, the couple may have considered their views on the moral status of the embryos. If the couple viewed the embryos are property, then, at the time of a divorce, they would split the embryos just like they would split the earnings of a shared house or the money in the bank. Each member is half-owner, so they each get a few embryos. However, this isn’t what the couple did, nor is it something other couples put in their contracts. There is a “all or nothing” mindset when it comes to embryos. The couple may have seen the embryos as potential human life; therefore, whoever would give the embryos a chance at life would be the one granted them. Or they may have thought indefinite cryopreservation, donation to research or another couple, or destroying the embryos would be the best option for them. In deciding what to do with embryos, there is the consideration of what are embryos and what is their meaning/value to the individuals creating the embryos.
The takeaway from these recent cases/laws is to emphasize that the changing technology of ART comes the changing of laws surrounding it. Laws are made to be as widespread as possible, yet they can be made based on moral beliefs of leadership. Not every situation has occurred, so there are more laws to be made and court cases to be had. Because of this, it is difficult to have every stipulation written in a contract. Even so, there are ways to do your due diligence such as establishing contracts. It might be difficult to imagine a situation where loved ones, like a wife or sister, might bring someone to court over their embryos, but it has and does happen. It is important to review contracts with a personal lawyer. It is also important to know the laws in the country and the political climate in the event things change and dramatically impact someone’s ability to utilize ART.
Resources:
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/azeenghorayshi/netflix-follow-this-embryos-ruby-torres
Scarier Than Halloween: Polish Government Legalizes Involuntary "Donation" Of Embryos. By ELLEN TRACHMAN
* This blog constitutes general information about genetic testing and medical screening. This blog does not offer or provide medical advice or diagnosis, and nothing in this blog/webinar should be construed as medical advice or diagnosis. This blog does not offer legal advice and should not be construed as legal advice. Do not rely on the information in this blog/webinar to make medical management decisions. Please consult with a medical professional before making those decisions. Do not delay in seeking professional medical advice if you think you have a medical concern. Do not disregard professional medical advice based on any information received in this blog.
