Legal Issues in Gamete and Embryo Cryopreservation: An Overview

Abstract

This article provides an overview of existing and developing law surrounding IVF embryos and those who handle them. It discusses what law and legal theories of liability may apply to embryology labs, and gamete and embryo banks in the context of embryo loss, abandonment, shipping and implantation. It explores how often intertwined theories of law have been applied to this unique field, including contract, informed consent, health, tort and Constitutional law. Recent so-called “Personhood” initiatives are reviewed for their impact on ART practice. The article also explores how legal principles related to patient choice, autonomy, informed consent, and the various rights and responsibilities of providers and patients have been applied to this area of medicine which is unique both because it involves at least two patients and due to the singular nature and reproductive potential of ex-utero and cryopreserved embryos and gametes. Through an examination of largely US judicial and statutory perspectives and trends, the article assesses the complexities of the impact of the law on, and attempts to offers guidance to, those involved in this continually evolving and challenging field of medicine.

Keywords

embryos - reproductive tissue - cryopreservation - personhood - pre-embryo - informed consent

• References

• 1 American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Illinois becomes fifth state to enact fertility preservation law. ReproductiveFacts.org From the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Available at: https://www.reproductivefacts.org/news-and-publications/news-and-research/press-releases-and-bulletins/illinois-becomes-fifth-state-to-enact-fertility-preservation-law/ . Accessed October 1, 2018
• 2 Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)
• 3 Crockin SL. The “embryo” wars: at the epicenter of science, law, religion, and politics. Fam Law Q 2005; 39 (03) 599-632
• 4 Commonwealth v. Edelin, 359 N.E.2d 4 (Mass.1976)
• 5 Lifchez v. Hartigan, 735 F. Supp. 1361 (N.D. Ill. 1990)
• 6 Davis v. Davis, 842 S.W.2d 588 (Tenn.1992)
• 7 McQeen v. Gadberry, 507 S.W.3d 127 (Mo. 2017)
• 8 S.H. v. D.H., 2018 ONSC 4506 (CanLII)
• 9 Loeb v. Vergara, No. B286252 (Cal.App. 2 Dist. Apr. 24, 2018); Human Embryo No. 4 HB-A v. Vergara, No. 767–189 (La. Dist. Dec. 7, 2016)
• 10 Lewi T. Anti-abortion groups join battles over frozen embryos. The New York Times. January 19, 2016. Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/20/us/anti-abortion-groups-join-battles-over-frozen-embryos.html . Accessed October 1, 2018
• 11 York v. Jones, 717 F. Supp. 421 (E.D. Va. 1989)
• 12 Debele GA, Crockin SL. Legal issues surrounding embryos and gametes: what family law practitioners need to know. J Am Acad Matrimonial Law 2018; 31: 55-122
• 13 Johnson CY. The 'game-changing' technique to create babies from skin cells just stepped forward. The Washington Post. September 20, 2018. Available at: www.washingtonpost.com/science/2018/09/20/game-changing-technique-create-babies-skin-cells-just-stepped-forward/?utm_term=.d5eaa99195bb . Accessed October 1, 2018
• 14 Abecassis M. Artificial wombs: the third era of human reproduction and the likely impact on French and U.S. law. Hastings Womens Law J 2016; 27: 3-28
• 15 Sedig L. What's the role of autonomy in patient-and family-centered care when patients and family members don't agree?. AMA J Ethics 2016; 18 (01) 12-17
• 16 Kenealy T, Goodyear-Smith F, Wells S, Arroll B, Jackson R, Horsburgh M. Patient preference for autonomy: does it change as risk rises?. Fam Pract 2011; 28 (05) 541-544
• 17 American Medical Association. Code of Medical Ethics Opinion 2.1.1. American Medical Association Web site. Available at: https://www.ama-assn.org/delivering-care/informed-consent . Accessed October 1, 2018
• 18 LII / Legal Information Institute. (2018). Adhesion Contract (Contract of Adhesion). [online] Available at: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/adhesion_contract_%28contract_of_adhesion%29 . Accessed November 5, 2018
• 19 Crockin SL, Daar J. American society for reproductive medicine updates consent forms for egg donation. Virtual Mentor 2014; 16 (04) 302-303
• 20 Findley v. Lee (Super. Ct. Cal. Case No. FDI-13–780539, Nov. 2015)
• 21 McQueen v. Gadberry (No. ED 103138, 2016 WL 6777902, Mo Ct App Nov. 15, 2016)
• 22 Cal. Health & Safety Code § 125315 (1939)
• 23 Cal. Pen. Code § 367g. (1872), Amended by Stats. 2011
• 24 Ball D, Coddington C, Doody K. , et al; Practice Committees of American Society for Reproductive Medicine; Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. Mature oocyte cryopreservation: a guideline. Fertil Steril 2013; 99 (01) 37-43
• 25 Cohen IG, Adashi EY. Embryo disposition disputes: controversies and case law. Hastings Cent Rep 2016; 46 (04) 13-19
• 26 La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 9:126 (2008)
• 27 La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §9:123 (2008)
• 28 La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 9:130 (2008)
• 29 Hebert v. Ochsner Fertility Clinic. 102 So.3d 913 (La.Ct.App. 2012)
• 30 Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. American Society for Reproductive Medicine: defining embryo donation. Fertil Steril 2009; 92 (06) 1818-1819
• 31 Option of Adoption Act, GA Code Ann. Sections 198–240 (2010)
• 32 S.B. 1393, 2nd Leg., Reg. Sess. (Ariz. 2018)
• 33 Cohen IG, Adashi EY. Personhood and the three branches of government. N Engl J Med 2018; 378 (26) 2453-2455
• 34 Wånggren K, Prag F, Skoog Svanberg A. Attitudes towards embryo donation in Swedish women and men of reproductive age. Ups J Med Sci 2013; 118 (03) 187-195
• 35 Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act, 2008, Section 14 and Schedule 3 (UK)
• 36 International Federation of Fertility Societies. IFFS Surveillance 2016. Global Reproductive Health. 2016;1(e1):1. Available at: https://journals.lww.com/grh/Fulltext/2016/09000/IFFS_Surveillance_2016.1.aspx . Accessed October 1, 2018
• 37 Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act, Regulations 1991 Schedule 1 (UK)
• 38 Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Disposition of abandoned embryos. Fertil Steril 2004; 82 (Suppl. 01) S253
• 39 LSA-R.S. 9:129, § 129. Destruction
• 40 LSA-R.S. 14:101.2, § 101.2. Unauthorized use of sperm, ovum, or embryo
• 41 Ky Rev Stat §311:715(2017)
• 42 MD. Code Ann., Econ.Dev. § 10–438(c) (2008) (preventing any unused material from IVF procedures to be donated for research without written consent for donation)
• 43 Davis M. Indefinite freeze: the obligations a cryopreservation bank has to abandoned frozen embryos in the wake of the Maryland Stem Cell Research Act of 2006. J Health Care Law Policy 2012; 15 (02) 379-400
• 44 West's Ann.Cal.Penal Code § 367g (Assisted reproduction technology; unauthorized use or implantation of sperm, ova, or embryos; violation; penalty); See also § 125315 (Information to be provided to fertility treatment patients; failure to provide information constitutes unprofessional conduct; disposition of human embryos; health care providers to obtain informed consent; requirements)
• 45 Canadians' views on embryos sought. Vanc Sun 1996; ;(August): 2 . Accessed October 1, 2018
• 46 Cattapan A, Baylis F. Frozen in perpetuity: ‘abandoned embryos’ in Canada. Reprod Biomed Soc Online 2016; 1 (02) 104-112
• 47 Ravitsky V, Dupras-Leduc R. Emerging legal and ethical issues in reproductive technologies. In: Joly Y, Knoppers BM. , eds. Routledge Handbook of Medical Law and Ethics. 1st ed. Abingdon, United Kingdom: Routledge; 2016
• 48 Marilyn Moysa. Developing guidelines for storing orphan embryos: question of time, Edmonton J., August 2, 1996. Available at: https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/473090486. Accessed February 4, 2019
• 49 Crockin SL, Debele GA. Ethical issues in assisted reproduction: a primer for family law attorneys. J Am Acad Matrimonial Law 2015; 27: 289-357
• 50 Litdgett A. UPS can't shake frozen embryo mistreatment case. Law360. Available at: https://www.law360.com/articles/886844/ups-can-t-shake-frozen-embryo-mistreatment-case . Accessed October 1, 2018
• 51 47 U.S. Code § 206, Carriers' liability for damages
• 52 Cha AE. These would-be parents' embryos were lost. Now they're grieving — and suing. The Washington Post. August 24, 2018. Available at: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/healthscience/these-would-be-parents-embryos-were-lost-now-theyregrieving-and-suing/2018/08/24/57040ab0-733c-11e8-805c-4b67019fcfe4_story.html?/838df192c26 . Accessed February 1, 2019
• 53 Kowalczyk L. Couple sue Brigham over embryos' disposal. The Boston Globe. May 16, 2009. Available at: http://archive.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2009/05/16/couple_sue_brigham_over_embryos_disposal/l/ . Accessed October 1, 2018
• 54 Smith S. Fertility clinic to couple: you got the wrong embryos. CNN. September 22, 2009. Available at: http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/09/22/wrong.embryo.family/index.html . Accessed October 1, 2018
• 55 O'Farreel M. IVF mother: ‘I love him to bits, but he's probably not mine.’ The Guardian. October 29, 2009. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2009/oct/30/ivf-errors-baby-mix-up . Accessed October 1, 2018
• 56 Kirkey S. Switched embryos and wrong sperm: IVF mix ups lead to babies born with ‘unintended parentage.’ National Post. July 30, 2016. Available at: https://nationalpost.com/health/ivf-mix-ups-lead-to-babies-born-with-unintended-parentage . Accessed October 1, 2018
• 57 Cockrum v. Baumgartner, 447 N.E.2d 385, 389 (Ill. 1983) (Illinois Supreme Court agreeing with most jurisdictions that costs of rearing a healthy child cannot be recovered as damage)
• 58 Andrews v. Keltz, 838 N.Y.S.2d 363 (2007)
• 59 Perry-Rogers v. Obasaju, 723 N.Y.S.2d 28 (2001)
• 60 Yoshino K. UCI settles dozens of fertility suits. Los Angeles Times. September 11, 2009. Available at: http://articles.latimes.com/2009/sep/11/local/me-uci-fertility11 . Accessed October 1, 2018
• 61 Perry-Rogers v. Fasano, 715 N.Y.S.2d 19 (2000)
• 62 ACB v. Thomson Medical Pte. Ltd. 1 SLR 918 (2017)
• 63 Paretta v. Medical Offices, 760 N.Y.S.2d 639 (2003)
• 64 Doolan v. IVF America (MA), Inc., 12 Mass. L. Rep. 482, 3 (2000)
• 65 Molloy v. Meier, 660 N.W.2d 444 (Minn. Ct. App. 2003)
• 66 Glover v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Hosp. Auth., 817 S.E.2d 919 (unpublished opinion). (N.C.Ct. Apps. 2018); 819 S.E.2d 558 (granting defendant’s motion for stay, Nov 1, 2018)