Legal Issues and Frozen Embryos

Shirley Darby Howell, Professor of Law at Faulkner University’s Thomas Goode Jones School of Law in Montgomery, Alabama, wrote “The Frozen Embryo: Scholarly Theories, Case Law, and Proposed State Regulation” for the Human Life Review (Spring 2013) and DePaul Journal of Health Care Law (Vol. 14.3:407). She looks at possible state laws that would resolve disputes about the status of frozen embryos. Here is an outline of her paper:

I. SECTION 1: THE PROCEDURE
A. The In Vitro Fertilization Process
B. Unintended Consequences
C. Who Is Responsible?
II. SECTION II: THE LEGAL STATUS OF THE FROZEN EMBRYO: PERSON, PROPERTY, OR AN “ENTITY” DESERVING SPECIAL RESPECT
A. The Frozen Embryo as Early Life
1. Proponents of the Position
2. Legal Impediments to the Enforceability of “Embryos as Early Life” Position
B. Frozen Embryos as Property
C. The Frozen Embryo as an Entity Deserving Respect
III. SECTION III: SCHOLARLY THEORIES OF DISPUTE RESOLUTION
A. The Robertson Contract Theory
1. Davis v. Davis
2. Kass v. Kass
3. J.B. v. M.B.
B. The Coleman Contemporaneous Consent Approach
C. The Feminist Position
D. The Right to Procreate
E. The Right Not to Procreate
IV. SECTION IV: NAHMANI: ISRAEL’S SOLUTION238
V. SECTION V: ANALYSIS: CONTRACT VS. CONTEMPORANEOUS AGREEMENT MODELS

HT Janet Smith

RGotcher

Robert Gotcher is a dogmatic and moral theologian and long-time member of UFL who received his Ph.D. from Marquette University. He and his wife, Kathy, are raising their seven children in Franklin, Wisconsin.