Szafranski Vs Dunston Case Study

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.

Procedural Facts: In May 2010, a couple of months after Plaintiff Jacob Szafranski donated his sperm and have eight eggs fertilized for freezing, Plaintiff Jacob Szafranski sent Defendant Karla Dunston a text message ending the relationship. In August 2010, two months after the relationship ended, Plaintiff Jacob Szafranski filed a pro se complaint in the circuit court of Cook County. Plaintiff Jacob Szafranski sought to keep Defendant Karla Dunston from using the frozen pre-embryos so he was not forced to father a child against his will. Defendant Karla Dunston ended up counterclaiming and asking the court to grant her sole custody and control over the pre-embryos so she could someday use the pre-embryos to bear her children. Defendant Karla Dunston sited breach of contract and asked the court for relief under promissory estoppel. The circuit court ended up siding with Defendant Karla Dunston by granting her full custody and control over the use of the frozen pre-embryos.

Kass, a case dealing with one party objecting the use of frozen genetic material to achieve pregnancy of another party, as an introduction for his article. Providing the facts of this controversial issue works very well in setting up the content of his article for the interest of his reader. Other cases he repeatedly refers to are the Hecht v. Superior Court, Davis v. Davis, and the Buzzanca surrogacy case. By using these court cases as examples, McKee is able to provide unbiased facts as support in the content of his article.

In or about June of 2011, Jennifer Cramblett and Amanda Zinkon decided to start a family together. Later that summer the two met with Dr. Nicholas J Spirtos of the Northeast Ohio Fertility Clinic, during which Dr. Spirtos recommended that the couple seek a sperm donor through the Midwest Sperm Bank. The two women spent the next week searching through donor profiles from the clinic; they had decided that they would seek a donor with similar genetic traits as they themselves had. Although the couple had decided that Jennifer would carry first, Amanda intended to be inseminated by the same sperm at a later date so that their children would be biologically related. After reviewing histories of their most favorable donors, Amanda and Jennifer

Only twenty years ago, embryo freezing (cryopreservation) was considered a technique that raised “disturbing,” “extremely difficult,” “incredibly complex,” and even “nightmarish” ethical issues. Currently, however, at least 41 of the 169 infertility clinics in the United States have begun to implement in vitro fertilization protocols (IVF) (Freemann et al., 1986). The number of frozen embryos in this country nearly tripled, from 289 to 824, between 1985 and 1986 (Van Steirteghem and Van Den Abbel, 1988). An estimated ten infants in the U.S. and sixty in the world were born as of 1988 after having been frozen as embryos. The government and professional advisory groups have endorsed embryo

In this case study a couple by the name of Michelle and Brian Clifford decided to conceive a child after a few years of the marriage. After five years of trying with no results they consulted a fertility expert and it was found that Michelle was unable to have children naturally so they decided to try IVF treatments. Michelle’s eggs were harvested and introduced to Brain’s sperm in the laboratory. After a few days four embryos were implanted into Michelle and the other seven were placed in a freezer for further use. The first IVF procedure was unsuccessful and during the following years of the IVF treatments Michelle’s and Brian were having marital issues. They filed for divorce and Brian wanted to donate the embryos for research and Michelle

Lastly, Mary, a co-worker, was interviewed in relation to embryonic harvesting and freezing. Mary’s nursing experience spans 30 years and as she states, science and technology have changed tremendously since the beginning of her career. Although she promotes the process of life, such as in the case of the Capato’s, she does state ethical concern in morality resulting when “embryonic freezing and harvesting is manipulated for the purposes of research,

King first touches on the topic of in vitro fertilization and the opportunities it offers for couples who cannot conceive naturally. She goes on to discuss the topic of research on the human embryos that does not get implanted into the woman’s body. Research is being

In reproductive technology, ethical decisions should focus on the good of the children, their individual parents, and families, and let us not forget the good health and common good of the larger society (Morrison, 2009). Exercising the principles of ethics can assist in finding common ground in NRT. Bioethical issues include the appropriate use of pre-implantation genetic diagnostic screening, use, storage and destruction of excess IVF embryos, and research involving embryos. “NRT research requires human participants, donors and donated embryos, oocytes and sperm” (Adelaide Centre for Bioethics and Culture, 2013). Ethics committees have detailed expected behaviors/regulations that are supposed to be followed if participating in this type of medical treatment. In fact, advisory groups and researchers have encouraged participants to disclose the fact of gamete donation to the offspring, and some clinics will aid in assisting future contact if all members agree. (American Society for Reproductive Medicine, 2014). As a minimum, donors, and recipients have an obligation to disclose non-identifying medical information. Should a medical issue arise in the future, all participants have a

While in-vitro fertilization has helped many couples have a child they couldn’t have any other way, it has also created the problem of unwanted embryos. Since there are almost a million unwanted embryos that need to be kept frozen, and the government is spending almost a million dollars to make people aware of the situation (Mayes). They’re trying to invent the new Technologies in a successful way so that we can solve any obstacles comes in our way.

The principle of nonmaleficence, to do no harm, in reproductive technology can be applied to the prospective parents and the prospective child-the embryo. The procedures involved in attempting to impregnate a woman can be physically and emotionally damaging, but rewarding if done successfully. But the parties must first determine to what extent and at what cost will they risk to achieve their ultimate goal. It would cause great harm physically to the embryos if there were multiple unsuccessful attempts, but many would argue that the end outweighs the means, that it is worth it if the result was a viable pregnancy and healthy child.

The author’s experience of donating eggs to an infertile couple was life-changing to her point-of-view of new life and the reader’s knowledge of egg donation. At the end of her story, I started to agree the author’s perspective of giving her eggs to someone else. During the story, I noticed that she started to worry about the health of the unborn child and donating eggs takes a long process by checking her health and injecting many needles to her body. In addition, she does not want to let the couples down because they wanted a child of their own and cannot do it without her eggs. My personal belief about egg donation is almost the same as a child adoption. Beginning of the process is where the couples find the right egg donor like a perfect

For consequentialists, the low success rate and experimental nature suggests that fertility preservation is not always in the best interest of the individual as it may result in unfortunate consequences. Employers come under scrutiny for selling the benefit as an insurance policy whilst bypassing the very serious health effects. The reality is that egg freezing cannot guarantee successful childbirth later in life. For women who are not successful, egg freezing can lead anguish and regret of not being able to have a longed-for child, a scenario far worse than a pay increase or a temporary career hold. In this sense, it is the employers’ interest at heart and the good is not maximized.

This article describes how and why there has been an increase in demand even though there are ethical issues. The article states, “‘People want it. It’s legal,’ said Dr. Michael Feinman, medical director of HRC Fertility offices in Westlake Village and Encino. ‘In a competitive market, it’s obviously a way to acquire other patients’” (“Lab Methods”).

Over the last few years there have been court battles involving frozen embryos, frozen sperm and frozen eggs. One of the most recent cases is Sofia Vergara and Nick Loeb’s publicized battle over the frozen embryos that they created together in 2013. The decision was made to create the embryos due to Sofia’s age and Nick’s desire to have children. They realized how sophisticated science had become and decided to use the scientific knowledge to their advantage. When they were ready, they would have children together. However, they went their separate ways and a lengthy court battle still pursues on who should have the frozen embryos. Whether it is frozen embryos, frozen sperm or frozen eggs the ethical and legal battle will continue for decades as to whom should retain ownership and make decisions regarding the frozen material. This frozen material at some point has to be removed from the human body and in the case of frozen sperm, sometimes the sperm is collected post-mortem.