Topic: Assisted Reproduction
January 28, 2016 | Posted By Claire Horner, JD, MA

Gestational surrogacy contracts have been in the news again recently as a gestational surrogate reports that the intended father, having discovered that she is expecting triplets, is demanding that she undergo selective reduction to abort one of the fetuses.  Situations such as these, while often not reported, are not necessarily uncommon.  In 2013, a gestational carrier was offered $10,000 to abort when a second trimester ultrasound discovered congenital heart and brain abnormalities.  Despite a well-established Constitutional right to privacy that includes a pregnant woman’s right to procure – or refuse – an abortion, surrogacy contracts routinely include provisions that not only prohibit a surrogate from having an abortion unless there is a medical need, but also give the intended parents sole discretion to determine whether the surrogate should abort where there is evidence of a physical abnormality or other issue.  Such provisions have not been tested in court, but would almost certainly be unenforceable based on the surrogate’s Constitutionally-protected right to reproductive autonomy.


In India, where there is an estimated $400 million surrogate tourism industry, women agree to be surrogates in exchange for $5,000-7,000, which is far more than they could make otherwise.  In many clinics, surrogates live in dormitories for the duration of the pregnancy and their food and medical care is provided by the clinic.  There are also reports that some clinics have policies against pregnancies of 3 or more fetuses – meaning that selective reduction may occur as a matter of course to reduce the number of fetuses to 2 or 1.  If this is in fact happening, are the surrogates (or even the intended parents) aware of what is happening?  Are they given a voice in the medical care and treatments they receive?  Or are the decisions made by the intended parents or the clinic, and simply imposed on the surrogate?


The Alden March Bioethics Institute offers a Master of Science in Bioethics, a Doctorate of Professional Studies in Bioethics, and Graduate Certificates in Clinical Ethics and Clinical Ethics Consultation. For more information on AMBI's online graduate programs, please visit our website.

December 29, 2015 | Posted By Claire Horner, JD, MA

“It is a disturbing consequence of modern biological technology that the fate of the nascent human life, which the Embryos in this case represent, must be determined in a court by reference to cold legal principles.”  Findley v. Lee, No. FDI-13-780539, 4 (Cal. Tentative Ruling Filed Nov. 18, 2015).

On November 18, 2015, the Superior Court of California issued a Tentative Decision and Proposed Statement of Decision holding that five embryos that were created and cryopreserved by a husband and wife, now divorced, must be destroyed in accordance with the agreement signed by the parties prior to beginning IVF.  According to the Court, the agreement contained, among others, a provision determining in advance the agreed-upon disposition of any remaining embryos in the event of divorce.  For this provision, both spouses initialed “thaw and discard.”  This “contractual approach” has been adopted by several jurisdictions that have had occasion to determine disposition of embryos in divorce.  In this analysis, courts will enforce an agreement signed by the parties prior to IVF as evidence of their intentions at the outset of the process.  

Courts in some states have decided such cases using different approaches.  The Constitutional rights approach (or balancing approach) looks at the interests of the parties, evaluating and balancing their respective rights, which seems to result in a comparison of the right to procreate and the right to avoid procreation.  This paradigm, in practice, has led courts to conclude that the right to avoid procreation typically prevails.  The contemporaneous mutual consent approach, on the other hand, attempts to reconcile the contractual approach with the current wishes of the parties by holding that pre-IVF agreements are valid and enforceable unless and until one of the parties changes his or her mind.  While this approach appears to recognize contracts, in practice a contract is disregarded where there is disagreement, and the embryos remain frozen until a mutual decision can be reached.

The Alden March Bioethics Institute offers a Master of Science in Bioethics, a Doctorate of Professional Studies in Bioethics, and Graduate Certificates in Clinical Ethics and Clinical Ethics Consultation. For more information on AMBI's online graduate programs, please visit our website.

December 18, 2015 | Posted By Lisa Campo-Engelstein, PhD
Last month I attended the Oncofertility Consortium conference and gave a talk titled “Ethical Considerations of Fertility Preservation in Adolescents.” The goals of this talk were to describe the common ethical considerations of fertility preservation (FP) for adolescent cancer patients and to explore the different medical and social considerations for adolescent females and males due to sex and gender.

Like any medical intervention for the adolescent population, there is the question of whether adolescents are able to assent or consent to FP. Should the decision to pursue FP rest in the hands of the adolescent or the adolescent’s parents/guardians? On the one hand, adolescents may choose to forgo FP because they do not understand the value of their fertility may have them later especially since, at their age, they are bombarded with messages about avoiding pregnancy. On the other hand, adolescents may feel pushed to undergo FP due to parental pressure (e.g. their parents/guardians want to be grandparents in the future).

The Alden March Bioethics Institute offers a Master of Science in Bioethics, a Doctorate of Professional Studies in Bioethics, and Graduate Certificates in Clinical Ethics and Clinical Ethics Consultation. For more information on AMBI's online graduate programs, please visit our website.
October 1, 2015 | Posted By Lisa Campo-Engelstein, PhD

Savior siblings are children who are born to provide HLA compatible body parts, typically umbilical cord blood to be used for bone marrow transplantation, in order to save the life of their older sibling. They are created using IVF so that the embryos can be screened in order to find and implant one that is a match to the existing child. The first savior sibling, Adam Nash, was born in the US was born in 2000. Lisa and Jack Nash decided to create a savior sibling after their doctor suggested it might be the best option for a cure for their daughter Molly, who was born with a severe type of Fanconi anemia. Immediately after Adam was born, Molly received a bone marrow transplant using the umbilical cord blood from her brother. The notion of savior siblings gained more attention with Jodi Picoult’s book My Sister’s Keeper and the movie based on the book. In contrast to Adam Nash, the savior sibling in the book and movie is expected to continue giving bodily to her sister throughout her childhood, including organ transplantation, rather than one time umbilical cord donation.

Is it ethical for parents to create a savior sibling? Some argue that the parents’ intention plays a role in considering whether it is ethical to create a savior sibling. If the parents were not planning on having any more children and they are the having the savior sibling only for the sake of the older child, then there is the concern of using the savior sibling as a means to an end. If the parents were planning on having more children, then some claim that the savior sibling is wanted for her/his own sake and is not being created for just one purpose (i.e. to save the older child).

The Alden March Bioethics Institute offers a Master of Science in Bioethics, a Doctorate of Professional Studies in Bioethics, and Graduate Certificates in Clinical Ethics and Clinical Ethics Consultation. For more information on AMBI's online graduate programs, please visit our website.

January 16, 2015 | Posted By Jane Jankowski, DPS, LMSW

The release of Cuban spy Gerardo Hernandez as part of a prisoner swap made headlines last month not only for the diplomatic implications for Cuba-US relations, but also for the questions surrounding assisted reproductive services for incarcerated persons. According to a brief report from NPR, Hernandez’s spouse wanted to have a child with her incarcerated husband and sought support from a sympathetic US senator to facilitate this expression of reproductive liberty. While this case includes an added layer of intrigue because of the impressive barriers that were overcome to secure the means and support for artificial insemination, the question of how we ought to consider the use of assisted reproductive technology for couples who wish to bear children despite one parent serving a life sentence.

While some children may be conceived where prisoners are permitted conjugal visits, Mr. Hernandez was in a federal prison where it is reported that such visits are not allowed. The only means for reproduction would be via assisted technology such as artificial insemination, a now basic intervention. What about other families who wish to raise children but without the connections or possibility for release? Is it ethical to support such endeavors when one parent will be able to contribute gametes and an occasional visit in a prison setting without freedom to participate in rearing the child? This is not such an easily answered question.

The Alden March Bioethics Institute offers a Master of Science in Bioethics, a Doctorate of Professional Studies in Bioethics, and Graduate Certificates in Clinical Ethics and Clinical Ethics Consultation. For more information on AMBI's online graduate programs, please visit our website. 

October 23, 2014 | Posted By Lisa Campo-Engelstein, PhD

A few weeks ago, I attended the annual Oncofertility Consortium conference where Dr. Angel Petropanagos and I presented our poster “Teen Boys and Fertility Preservation: An Ethical Analysis.”  The vast majority of discussions about fertility preservation (FP), particularly FP for “social” (aka nonmedical) reasons, are focused on women in part because FP for women raises more ethical issues.  For instance, egg freezing carries more health risks and is generally less effective than sperm freezing. Furthermore, whereas sperm freezing has been an established method of FP for decades, it was only two years ago that the American Society for Reproductive Medicine lifted the experimental label from egg freezing.

Yet, even established technologies can raise ethical concerns when used in vulnerable groups, such as children. Our research project examines the ethical issues FP raises when used by teenage boys.  In order to undergo sperm freezing, males must produce a sperm sample and this is usually done through masturbation. However, discussions about masturbation can be embarrassing and difficult for adolescent males (as well as for healthcare providers), particularly if they have never masturbated or never masturbated and achieved an ejaculation. Some parents and healthcare providers place a high value on preserving patients’ future option of genetic reproduction, but FP discussions with teen males can be especially challenging due to the sensitive and private nature of sexuality and reproduction. 

The Alden March Bioethics Institute offers a Master of Science in Bioethics, a Doctorate of Professional Studies in Bioethics, and Graduate Certificates in Clinical Ethics and Clinical Ethics Consultation. For more information on AMBI's online graduate programs, please visit our website.

December 20, 2013 | Posted By Lisa Campo-Engelstein, PhD

There are many celebrities who make the news because they have used a gestational surrogate to have their children, including Sarah Jessica Parker, Guiliana Rancic, Elizabeth Banks, Nicole Kidman, Ricki Martin, Neil Patrick Harris, and Elton John. From the little information provided about their surrogacy arrangements, it seems like most of the celebrities partner with surrogates who live in the US. What is almost never mentioned in these articles is the legality and enforceability of surrogacy contracts, which can vary dramatically from state to state. Each state has to determine how they want to regulate surrogacy because there is no federal legislation, though there was a push for it following the infamous Baby M case. 

Surrogacy laws can be categorized into three categories. The first category is comprised of laws that permit surrogacy contracts by outlining the criteria for the contracts to be lawful and enforceable. For example, surrogacy laws in Florida require that the intended couple must be over 18 years old and married, the intended mother must be incapable of gestating a pregnancy without physical risk to herself or the fetus, and at least one of the intended parents must be biologically related to any resulting child. These requirements have to be fulfilled in order for any surrogacy contract to be legal and enforceable.

The Alden March Bioethics Institute offers a Master of Science in Bioethics, a Doctorate of Professional Studies in Bioethics, and Graduate Certificates in Clinical Ethics and Clinical Ethics Consultation. For more information on AMBI's online graduate programs, please visit our website.

September 17, 2013 | Posted By Lisa Campo-Engelstein, PhD

Testicular tissue cryopreservation is a neglected topic in the fields of fertility preservation and bioethics not only because reproduction is usually associated with women and girls, but also because sperm banking is an established, easy, and cheap method that works for the majority of male cancer patients. However, norms surrounding fatherhood are changing, with more men interested in active fatherhood, and consequently fertility preservation is becoming and will continue to become increasingly important to male cancer patients.

When compared to the number of studies demonstrating the importance of fertility to female cancer patients, the literature focusing on male cancer patients’ perspectives on fertility is minimal. However, there are more researchers examining the latter topic today than in the past. Contemporary research on gendered perspectives on fertility preservation reveals a shift over time: although older studies generally found that female cancer patients value their fertility

The Alden March Bioethics Institute offers a Master of Science in Bioethics, a Doctorate of Professional Studies in Bioethics, and Graduate Certificates in Clinical Ethics and Clinical Ethics Consultation. For more information on AMBI's online graduate programs, please visit our website.

August 23, 2013 | Posted By Lisa Campo-Engelstein, PhD

Unlike organs, the U.S. allows gametes to be purchased. Given this dichotomy between the legal treatment of gametes and the legal treatment of organs, the question then arises: how should we legally classify ovaries, which can be used to treat both reproductive conditions (infertility) and non-reproductive conditions (premature menopause)?  

I believe ovarian tissue should be aligned with gametes rather than organs. I recognize that this leads to concerns about the sale of ovarian tissue (e.g., price, access, limitations, etc.). However, ovarian tissue like gametes and unlike other types of transplant, can lead to pregnancy, a socially and ethically important difference. The potential to create a new life is significant because new life often engenders new relationships and legal responsibilities. Whereas organ donors, both living and cadaveric, can remain anonymous, gamete donors typically cannot, at least not fully anonymous. Gamete donors are generally required to provide personal information on a variety of topics, such as physical characteristics, family medical history, religion, personal achievements, and personality traits. Potential recipients (and fertility centers) are usually the only ones who have access to this personal information. 

The Alden March Bioethics Institute offers a Master of Science in Bioethics, a Doctorate of Professional Studies in Bioethics, and Graduate Certificates in Clinical Ethics and Clinical Ethics Consultation. For more information on AMBI's online graduate programs, please visit our website.

June 17, 2013 | Posted By Lisa Campo-Engelstein, PhD

One of the major concerns with human egg donation is that there is no federal or systematic oversight. The UK has the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) that regulates the use of gametes and embryos for fertility treatment and research. In contrast, the US is the “Wild West” when it comes to reproductive medicine as we lack any real regulation in this field (there are soft policy guidelines from various medical and scientific organizations but these don’t have teeth). 

Without any oversight, many concerns are raised about the screening of donors. For example, women can donate at multiple centers without any of the other centers knowing. There are no good studies on the effects of donating eggs numerous times, but many believe it could be detrimental to women’s health. Another problem with women donating to multiple centers is that if their eggs are to be used for research purposes, it could lead to less diversity in the research sample. If their eggs are being used for reproductive purposes, then there is a greater chance of creating many half-siblings. 

The Alden March Bioethics Institute offers a Master of Science in Bioethics, a Doctorate of Professional Studies in Bioethics, and Graduate Certificates in Clinical Ethics and Clinical Ethics Consultation. For more information on AMBI's online graduate programs, please visit our website.

SEARCH BIOETHICS TODAY
SUBSCRIBE TO BIOETHICS TODAY
ABOUT BIOETHICS TODAY
BIOETHICS TODAY is the blog of the Alden March Bioethics Institute, presenting topical and timely commentary on issues, trends, and breaking news in the broad arena of bioethics. BIOETHICS TODAY presents interviews, opinion pieces, and ongoing articles on health care policy, end-of-life decision making, emerging issues in genetics and genomics, procreative liberty and reproductive health, ethics in clinical trials, medicine and the media, distributive justice and health care delivery in developing nations, and the intersection of environmental conservation and bioethics.
TOPICS