Szafranski and Ms. Dunston would both be considered legal co-parents of the child and that Mr. Szafranski agrees to undertake all legal, custodial, and other obligations to the child regardless of any changes between each party. Furthermore, the co-parent agreement went on to state that any eggs retrieved and cryopreserved as a result of the in vitro fertilization retrieval shall be under Ms. Dunston’s sole control and should the couple separate, Ms. Dunston will control the disposition of those pre-embryos. The co-parent agreement was never signed yet the couple moved forward with the in vitro fertilization. In May of 2010, Mr. Szafranski sent Ms. Dunston a text message effectively ending their relationship and then filed a pro se complaint in the Circuit Court of Cook County three months later seeking to permanently enjoin Ms. Dunston from using the pre-embryos so he could preserve his right to not be forced into fathering a child against his will. Mr. Szafranski argued that a man and woman are in equal positions when it comes to cryopreserved embryos as they’re not inside the woman’s body. Therefore, Mr. Szafranski argued, “the constitutional right not to be a parent means the consent of both the woman and the man is required for any sue of the pre-embryos. “ In September
Abortion is a controversial topic regarding the rights mainly of the fetus and the mother. Men’s rights and involvement are generally overlooked in the abortion process. Since females are the carriers of the embryo, most of the time the male’s input is not incorporated into the final decision. There are several debates regarding abortion and whose choice it should be to terminate the fetus. Every father has different expectations in a pregnancy and how much their decision should be included in the abortion depends solely on their involvement in the mother and embryo’s life. When the female deliberately engages in sexual intercourse, it becomes her responsibility to allow the fetus a right to her body and to include the father’s input. If
In the article “Selecting the Perfect Baby: The Ethics of “Embryo Design,” is an article about a married couple, name Larry and June Shannon. They have a daughter, four years old, name Sally, who is diagnosed with Fanconi Anemia. Therefore, the Shannons are getting help from a research team, to find the perfect bone marrow transplant for Sally. The Shannon couple is also interested in having another child and they are aware of the risks and odds of success. However, a PGD process has to be performed and the couple must undergo an IVF procedure more than once, before the implantation is successful, to be able to produce a healthy full-term baby.
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.
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
“One need not be deeply religious or oppose abortion to be troubled by the prospect of a society in which, as bioethicist Alexander Capron puts it, ‘The wanted child becomes the made-to-order child’" (Shannon). With rising concerns of building a baby through eugenics and IVF or In Vitro Fertilization, the government, court systems, activists, and public media is starting to take notice. Being able to pick your babies’ generic make up would be an ethical disaster with a slippery slope into an era where one’s child is created by man with build-a-baby qualities instead of the natural creation of a new life. Creating a designer baby through IVF technology would have severe consequences not only affecting this generation by all the future
Abortion is a controversial topic regarding the rights mainly of the fetus and the mother. Men’s rights and involvement are generally overlooked in the abortion process. Since females are the carriers of the embryo, most of the time male’s decisions are not incorporated into the final conclusion. There are several debates regarding abortion and whose choice it should be to decide in terminating the fetus. Every father has different outcomes in a pregnancy and how much their decision should be included in the abortion depends solely on their involvement in the mother’s life. When the female deliberately engages in sexual intercourse, it becomes her responsibility to carry the embryo to term and to allow the fetus to have a right to her
In vitro fertilisation (IVF) marks a great step forward in medical technology, and Australia is a leader in the field. IVF is now a popular procedure for couples who are infertile or are having trouble conceiving. However, it raises ethical, moral and legal issues including the rights of an individual, property rights, the definition of human life, scientific experimentation versus a potential human life, religion, costs, and community, medical and taxpayer’s rights.
The principles of ethics can assist in finding a middle ground on reproductive technologies by forcing the healthcare provider to consider first the patient and their well-being above all else, yet keeping in consideration the benefits and morality of the care they are giving. More often than not, there are more than two sides to every argument, especially when it comes to the latest reproductive technologies. “To obtain justifiable resolutions of these
In this age of technology and innovation, what was once science fiction is now becoming a reality. Human reproductive cloning is on the forefront for providing prospective parents with a new mode of reproduction. However, with the concept of reproductive cloning comes an unprecedented set of ethical issues. Issues especially focused on how cloning may affect the child’s right to an open future are highlighted by philosophers such as Dena Davis. Davis takes a neutral stance on reproductive cloning and argues that it is morally impermissible when used for duplicative motives, but permissible when used for logistical motives. Duplicative motives are when “the genetic replication itself… is the attraction” (Davis 160) and the parents wish for their child to be a mere copy of their donor. Logistical motivations are when the parents’ end goal “is simply to have a child” that is genetically related (Davis 159). Davis leaves the evaluation of such parental motives in the hands of healthcare professionals. Philosophers McGee and Wilmut add to Davis’ position, but call for a more holistic evaluation of parental motives and competency by following an adoption model. In this paper, I will support Davis’ argument on the moral permissibility of reproductive cloning under logistical motivations by addressing the main concerns that surround reproductive cloning. First, I shall reconstruct Davis’ argument in favor of reproductive cloning
How do you tell your child that he was conceived after his father died in a car accident? Technology today is “improving the prospects of posthumous procreation, that is, having children after one’s death” (Rae, 2009, p. 181). This delicate issue is defined as a production of offspring arising after death (dictionary.com). This new, successful technology presents one of the most challenging ethical issues to tackle in healthcare. There are so many unanswered questions when discussing this topic. Should it be allowed? Who decides whether sperm can be collected? When should it be used to conceive (Kahn, 2009)? Above all, should a man be forced to become a parent? In American society, we do not force men or women to become parents being that they can decide for themselves. Conversely, one can decide for them in the event they have passed away. This deems to be an issue of contradiction which is why I take a stance against posthumous procreation.
Elizabeth Stern, who had sclerosis, believed she would not be able to carry a child. The agreement was that Whitehead would be “inseminated with Mr. Stern’s sperm, carry the pregnancy to term and then yield parental rights to the Sterns (Garg 2016). A legality issue arose when Whitehead decided that she wanted to keep the little girl, known as Baby M. The result of the two-year long court case was that the Sterns had full parental rights of Baby M. While gestational surrogacy is more widely used in 2017, this case raised some concerns around the surrogacy process. First, the exchange of money for a reproductive service. Unlike other forms of reproductive services such a sex work, there is not a point within the nine months of being pregnant that one can just up and quit. Even at a certain point, getting a legal abortion is not even allowed. Second, the fact that Whitehead’s decision about having custody of a child she gave birth to was undermined by a contract. Last, the decision of how much a woman’s body is worth, especially reproductive organs. Rather than these three concerns being resolved with the use of a new type of surrogacy, gestational surrogacy seems to be more
The law seems still to be grappling with how to determine what it means to be the parent of a child created through in vitro fertilization. According to Nolo.com, a legal parent is someone “who [has] the right to live with a child … and to make decisions about the child’s health, education, and well-being” . In one such case, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments to test whether children conceived via IVF after the death of one of the genetic parents are eligible for Social Security survivors’ benefits. The case began in 2011, when cancer patient Robert Capato deposited sperm with a fertility clinic prior to chemotherapy treatment. After his death, his wife, Karen Capato, carried out their plan to have children and conceived twins, using Robert’s
IVF raises many of these difficult moral issues. If the above conceptions about the nature of ethics were correct, however, discussion of these issues would either be futile (because morality is a matter of personal choice or opinion) or superfluous (because morality is what a divine or secular authority says it is) (Walters 23). In this paper, I want to suggest that it is not only possible, but also necessary to inquire into the ethics of such practices as IVF because the fact that we can do something does not mean that we ought to do it.
In vitro fertilization is a type of assisted reproductive technology in which a woman’s egg is fertilized by a man’s sperm outside of the female body in a petri dish. The embryo is later then transferred back into the uterus after fertilization and some early development has taken place. Most of the people that claim to be against in vitro fertilization, also called assisted reproductive technology, and the idea of funding it here in the United States will give reasons to oppose it such as it is immoral, it is unsafe, or that it is ineffective. Upon inspection, in vitro fertilization appears to be much like any other new idea or concept in the sense that it will most likely be rejected and shunned at first, similarly to gay marriage or sperm donation. Properly educating those who see in vitro fertilization as a negative, pointless, or even a dangerous practice about the positive evidence now being found might help speed up the acceptance process.