In this essay I will discuss the controversial use of In Vitro Fertilization in a case where a mother is willing to act as a surrogate to her deceased daughter’s child. A woman showed up in The High Court in London, demanding freedom to take her daughter’s eggs to a New York fertility treatment clinic in order for the woman to act as a surrogate for her own grandchild. This happened after her daughter’s death in 2011, and claimed her daughter wanted her to carry her children. I will continue to interpret this case from different social perspectives: the scientific view, the ethic view, and the legal view.
In order for me to do this I will have to explain briefly how the process of In Vitro Fertilization works. In Vitro Fertilization, or IVF, is the process where a woman’s egg is extracted from the body it is later fertilized by a male’s sperm in a
…show more content…
M (the mother), referred this way for legal reasons as well. Mrs. M claims that A (the daughter) last wishes was for her mother to carry out and raise her child as one of their own. The Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority's (HFEA) refuses to let the parents take their daughters eggs for a fertility treatment to New York, as they lack of evidential proof of the daughter’s recording. The parent’s lawyer argued how the HFEA didn’t respect the Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, while the HFEA’s lawyer argued the inconvenience of the absence of evidence on the case, which cannot determine the daughter’s real wishes. It is also believed that the daughter might have not been aware of the mother’s risk during pregnancy, which may have altered her ultimate decision. The case has already been discussed in court for the third time after several refusals’s from the HFEA and is currently being analyzed by the judge, Mr. Justice Ouseley, and his final judgment will be announced in the near
Cases of this kind emphasise the tension between two significant policy goals: the child’s best interests, which must dominate the court’s determination as to whether to grant parenting orders, and the prohibition of commercial surrogacy. The former, naturally, prevails. In every published case, the Family Court relied on the evidence tendered by the intended parents indicating the foreign birth mother’s consent to the applications, even where some of that evidence was quite concerning; the birth mother’s lack of interest in parenting the child;and the satisfactory nature of the parenting arrangements achieved under the agreement, in concluding that the best interests of the child were served by making the parenting orders.The earliest published international surrogacy case is Re Mark (an application relating to parental responsibilities). The facts are fairly typical. A couple from Victoria entered into a surrogacy contract under which a woman in California agreed to bear a child for them; the ovum was supplied by an anonymous woman, and one of the applicants provided the
Amie Cullimore, a medical practitioner, filed a child support claim against Michael Ranson, who more than two decades ago donated his sperm to Amie Cullimore, who subsequently conceived two children. Cullimore alleges that throughout the years, Ranson has assumed the role of loco parentis, which means that Ranson has stood in the place of the parent throughout the years. Ranson filed a response that Bill 28, also known as, All Families Are Equal Act, which extinguishes Cullimore`s claim based on the assertion that the surrogate parents who lack an intention to be parents cannot be considered parents in law.
Mike McKee’s article, "Weighing the Right to Own an Embryo," made the front page of the Recorder, a daily legal newspaper published in San Francisco reporting on legal advice and interests of attorneys and legal practitioners. How did he make his article such a success? What made it front page worthy in the eyes of this legal audience? McKee’s article, "Weighing the Right to Own an Embryo," appeals to a legal audience by presenting an unbiased framework and evidence.
We are living in a new era where technology can help women have babies in unconventional ways. Having children is a personal choice. In some people’s view, government should not be regulating when people should and should not start having a family. The ethical issue is when the parents start applying for governmental benefits after the baby is conceived via In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) and born posthumously. When practicing IVF, are we violating God’s will? This paper is to discuss the views of the four candidates interviewed in relation to posthumous conception and delivery, their views on benefits/inheritance entitlement to these babies, and ethical principles and theories in
The cases of Baker and Landon and the earlier case of Aldridge and keaton both have considered the parenting rights when i a child is conceived as a result of IVF and when the applicant is not biologically related to the child. In these cases, the court found that for a person to be successfully identified as the parent of the child conceived through IVF, the non-biological person must first establish themselves into one of the categories under section 60H of the Family Law Act. When a child is born to a women as a result of an artificial contraception procedure while the women was (1) married to, or a de-facto partner of, an other intended partner and (2) whether there was consent, then for the purpose of
In 1986 there was a very controversial case dealing with a surrogate mother who did not want to give up the baby, this case was called the “Baby M” case. It caught the attention of many and it was very difficult to decide what to end up doing with the child. It began in the Spring of 1984 when Mary Beth Whitehead enrolled in a surrogate parenting program in New York. The Sterns enrolled in the same program in December 1984 and met with the Whiteheads in January 1985, by that time the surrogate parenting arrangement and the relationship of the two parties were discussed. Mary Beth Whitehead was artificially inseminated with Mr. Sterns sperm; in July 1985 she conceived and on March 1986 “Baby M” was born. Mary Beth Whitehead declined to surrender
In 1986, there was a surrogacy case that called into question the rights of surrogate mothers and the rights of the family that employed the surrogate. The famed Baby M case revolved around the contract between Mary Beth Whitehead and William Stern and his wife Elizabeth. Elizabeth had a severe medical condition that could be aggravated by pregnancy. Therefore, the Sterns reached out for a surrogate. The Sterns would compensate Ms. Whitehead a sum of $10,000 for carrying the child to term and relinquishing all parental rights. Ms. Whitehead would have parental rights because she was a traditional surrogate, which involves using the surrogate’s egg and donor sperm. The other form of surrogacy is gestational,
An issue that has caused great legal debate is the freezing of eggs and embryos. Freezing allows savings eggs or embryos for later implantation; not all are used. However, frozen embryos and eggs generally have a lower success rate. The question arises of what happens to them if the couple decides to divorce, or one or both of them dies? These situations have been decided through court determinations. In 1987, the status of frozen embryos was brought before the Victorian courts with the case of Mr and Mrs Rios, who had died in a plane crash. The embryos from Mr and Mrs Rios had been frozen in 1981. There were many ethical and moral concerns regarding this case. Should the embryos remain frozen indefinitely, be donated, or kept for research? The Infertility (Medical Procedures) Act
“Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done” said American science fiction writer Robert A. Heinlein. Heinlein was correct in his observation. Throughout the course of history, the gender of a child has always been a surprise and an uncontrollable part of life. Often it is regarded as a component of natural selection. Yet, scientific technologies have “made the impossible possible.” Advancement in In-vitro fertilization and uses of preimplantation genetic diagnosis have allowed people to have the power to make many genetic alterations to their future child, including gender selection. However, this scientific discovery brought about a controversial movement for reproductive freedom and draws out ethical concerns about what it
To respond appropriately to the most ethically relevant factors we will discuss the justifiable possible actions to consider. There were many different things we recommend in responding to this case in an ethical fashion. The first recommendation is to see the case out to the supreme court in support of Peggy. Referring to the Davis v. Davis Case () in 2004, we use the structure used for determining the fate of the embryos in that case and apply it to our case. The court created a hierarchical structure for disposition of the embryos. It follows three steps: first, the preferences of the genetic parents are considered; second, a prior agreement; and third, weighing the interests of the parties. Since the preference of the genetic parents
An individual had her whole life planned, where she were to get married, have a baby and live happily ever after. The thought of experiencing pregnancy and giving birth to her first or maybe only child is thrilling. However, she discovers that her health is in a critical state, and getting pregnant would worsen her illness. With many options available to have a child, this woman and her husband choose to have their biological baby through surrogacy. This process of surrogacy involves taking the sperm and the egg of the couple in order to have a fertilized egg that is going to be then transferred to a surrogate. Having the advantage of being a surrogate mother is empowering, and should not be viewed as unethical.
With particular reference to children born following donor insemination and adopted children, critically explore the extent to which it can be said that the law currently recognises that all children have a right to know who their genetic parents are.
The eggs are then extracted after approximately one-two months of medication. Afterwards, the eggs and the sperm from the husband are then allowed to fertilize to create embryos – preferably without assistance – in a medical laboratory for three to five days before being placed back into the uterus of the wife. The quality of the eggs will determine how long they are left to fertilize; however, the longer they are able to fertilize, the better the chances of a pregnancy. Once the embryos are placed back into the woman’s uterus, it will be up to her body to either accept or reject the embryos and become pregnant.
Human reproduction is as ancient a topic as any on the plant, and has been around since time began. Childlessness has plagued mankind for years, it has risen from 1 in 10 (1970) couples were childless to 1 in 5 (2010) as reported by the Pew Research Center. Adoption was once the only answer for a childless couple but with methods such as artificial insemination and other fertility treatments, which the scientific community has developed a couple now has more options to choose from. Artificial insemination was first used in 1884, and impregnating a woman through what is known as artificial insemination, was first used in 1884 (The Medical World: 163–164). Fertility treatments continued to be developed. In 1906 Surgeon Robert Tuttle Morris witnessed the only successful ovarian transplantation from healthy women to infertile women. In vitro fertilization (IVF) produced the world’s first test tube baby born on July 25, 1978 (The Medical World:, pg. 223). This procedure is done by removing the egg(s) from a woman and placing them with sperm and a fluid medium to fertilize in a laboratory 2-6 days then transferred to a woman’s uterus to establish a successful pregnancy. In 2010, the physiologist, Robert G. Edwards, who developed the IVF treatment, was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine. Concerns about the possibility of women being used as "baby factories" was raised by Pope John Paul but He also refused to condemn the parents of the child (Prospettive nel
Surrogate motherhood refers to that condition of a fertile (footnote) woman who has been contracted to become impregnated via reproductive technologies such as donor or artificial insemination. It is that condition wherein that fertile woman also has agreed to transfer her rights on the child to the biological parents after giving birth. This is bounded by a contract that was signed by the contracting parents and the surrogate. The reasons for this generally fall into two categories. Either the contracting couple is unable to produce a child or they would prefer to eliminate or enhance certain genetic traits. My argument would apply to either case. For the purpose of this paper, the motivations are irrelevant and the logic following