Vitro Fertilization Failure

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

A terrible accident in 1999 left them without their youngest child three year old Nicole. With their four sons they desperately wanted another little girl. Although they say that they were not wanting to replace the daughter they had lost. They had been trying for 15 years to conceive

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.

In 2002, Young went on working at UPS, picking up shipments as a truck driver. She worked as a part-timer. After four years, Young took a permission of absence to receive vitro fertilization. The moment she became

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.

Public backlash against Jennifer Cramblett quickly began. While most agree that the couple has a right to sue over the sperm “mix up”, it is Jennifer Cramblett’s reasoning that has many up in arms. Rather than focusing on the grave clinical error, the complaint more so focuses on that of the “injuries” Cramblett and Zinkon now face due to having a “mixed racial” child.

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

This is great because they would be allowing the embryo to live but at the same time both party will no longer have ties to each other. This would be more ethical as they will give the child a chance to. Embryo adoption states, “Embryo donation and adoption is a proven successful process allowing families with remaining embryos to donate them to another family desiring to experience pregnancy and childbirth” If Michelle and Brian get into an accident without signing a consent form as to what should happen to the embryos. I think the decision should be that if parents of the embryos are deceased then the embryos should be used for adoption of stem cell research and that the laboratory should be able to make that decision. It could also be that the embryos could go to the next of kin to the couple and the family can decide what to

Therefore, if it is an embryo that is frozen, it wouldn’t be okay with her and she would find it ethically and morally wrong to not use and dispose of the embryo. Although, as a rational woman and mother herself, she could see reasons and intended uses for such a procedure, but since it goes against her own moral standards, especially since conception is an act of God and using technology to interfere with the natural process of things is against her Lutheran upbringing, she is opposed to the process.

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.

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

Per Janet Rowley, “there are about 400,000 human embryos in the freezers of in vitro fertilization clinics”, meaning that there are research resources that will eventually be thrown away and wasted due to the shelf life of these frozen embryos. She proceeds to state that these embryos could “benefit patients with incurable diseases”, so every time an embryo reaches its frozen shelf life and is thrown away, so does the possibility of finding a cure for diabetes. Janet Rowley also presents a fact that “Scientists have worked tirelessly to develop useful alternatives”, because there is great concern about which

In San Francisco, a judge ruled that the frozen embryos of a divorcee must be “thawed and discarded”; a mere decision that the couple made before could easily avoid the court decision (Dolan A.1). Hundreds of other couples throughout the states deal with these legal procedures daily, even though, contracts in fertility clinics could end the problem quite simply. Along with the couple from San Francisco, a divorced couple in California fights it out in court. They did not determine the custody of the five leftover frozen embryos before the divorce. The mother would like to keep the embryos to eventually mother them, while the father would like to destroy them. In many cases like this, it makes for a hard decision for the judge (Belz). As many believe, a contract would solve majority of these problems, like Illinois courts, but other judges believe that the contracts made at fertility clinics could not be reinforced in court. While judges decide what to do, most tend to side with the one in favor of destroying the embryos, yet they believe with the embryos outside the body the man and woman possess the same rights. When Karla Dunston was diagnosed with cancer, she asked her boyfriend, of the time, if he would contribute his sperm in hope that they could freeze embryos, so she would be offered a chance at motherhood. Trying to ensure her rights of the embryos they contacted a lawyer when they first went to the clinic, but nothing was signed. Eventually, after four years courts ruled that Karla could use her embryos due to the oral agreement (Lewin A.1). Legally binding contracts from a lawyer that are made before any steps or processes that take place ahead of freezing embryos, would likely decrease the number of court hearings that relate to

I don’t think it was a mistake to allow In vitro fertilization. Sure, they have leftover embryos, but there’s always a solution on how to best use them. I think the best solution for this case would be to donate the embryos for research, putting them up for adoption, or donated them for the embryonic stem cell collection. To me these are the best options because they allow the embryos to be used for something. Discarding them or keeping them in suspension seems to be a waste of good research material and possible future children. I can’t say I like the idea of implanting the embryos into mothers just so they can die naturally. The procedure must cost something, and I don’t think this much effort is necessary just to give the embryos a natural