Frozen Embryo Disputes Revisited: A Trilogy of Procreation-Avoidance Approaches
In recent years, courts have increasingly found them-selves arbiters of disputes in the emotionally charged area of assisted reproductive technologies. Legal disputes are hardly surprising in the world of infertility medicine, where millions of patients spend billions of dollars in efforts to have a...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | The Journal of law, medicine & ethics medicine & ethics, 2001-06, Vol.29 (2), p.197-202 |
---|---|
1. Verfasser: | |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 202 |
---|---|
container_issue | 2 |
container_start_page | 197 |
container_title | The Journal of law, medicine & ethics |
container_volume | 29 |
creator | Daar, Judith F. |
description | In recent years, courts have increasingly found them-selves arbiters of disputes in the emotionally charged area of assisted reproductive technologies. Legal disputes are hardly surprising in the world of infertility medicine, where millions of patients spend billions of dollars in efforts to have a child. Increasingly, these efforts produce embryos that are frozen for later use, at once maximizing a couple's chances for success and minimizing the medical intrusiveness that necessarily accompanies most forms of assisted reproductive technologies. But with over 100,000 embryos in frozen storage in the United States and a divorce rate of 40 to 50 percent, it is not surprising that disputes over the disposition of these embryos are arising, causing the legal landscape surrounding these technologies to continue to expand. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1111/j.1748-720X.2001.tb00340.x |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_71096750</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A77355598</galeid><sage_id>10.1111_j.1748-720X.2001.tb00340.x</sage_id><sourcerecordid>A77355598</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c6867-1e9a0c31a485937603e72f33a894b8795a48bbe38dc14f5492bcf82c28c572c3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqVkl1v0zAUhiMEYmPwF1A0CcQFKf6o42Q3qCptgbUrQpXgznLck9ZdGhc7GS2_HkeNuhVVCOwLW_ZzXh-f8wbBJUYd7Me7VQfzbhJxgr53CEK4U2UI0S7qbB8F54erx36POI0wRuwseObcCnmW0PhpcIYxQwlO4_NgOrTmF5ThYJ3ZnQk_aLepK3DhV7jTTlcwvwp74czqwix2ocnDL9YoC7LSpox6d0bPZakg7G021ki1BPc8eJLLwsGLdr0IZsPBrP8xGk9Hn_q9caTiJOYRhlQiRbHsJiylPEYUOMkplUnazRKeMn-RZUCTucLdnHVTkqk8IYokinGi6EXwei_r3_1Rg6vEWjsFRSFLMLUTHKM05gx58PIPcGVqW_rUBCGUIYIZvYcWsgChy9xUVqpGUfQ4p4yxNPHQ2xPQAkqwsjAl5NofP8SjE7ifc1hrdYp_c8R7pIJttZC1cyIZjf-SSYsqUxSwAOHr3J8e4a8e4EuQRbV0pqibHroj7mrPKWucs5CLjdVraXcCI9EYT6xE4y7RuEs0xhOt8cTWB79s61xna5jfh7ZO88D7PfDT_3v3H9Li83gywCn3Cnyv4KT_5aGN_5Rc2wvtfKEOb0t7K2JOORPfbkZicjNJr4fXTBD6G_VJA1o</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>223502153</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Frozen Embryo Disputes Revisited: A Trilogy of Procreation-Avoidance Approaches</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><source>PAIS Index</source><source>HeinOnline Law Journal Library</source><creator>Daar, Judith F.</creator><creatorcontrib>Daar, Judith F.</creatorcontrib><description>In recent years, courts have increasingly found them-selves arbiters of disputes in the emotionally charged area of assisted reproductive technologies. Legal disputes are hardly surprising in the world of infertility medicine, where millions of patients spend billions of dollars in efforts to have a child. Increasingly, these efforts produce embryos that are frozen for later use, at once maximizing a couple's chances for success and minimizing the medical intrusiveness that necessarily accompanies most forms of assisted reproductive technologies. But with over 100,000 embryos in frozen storage in the United States and a divorce rate of 40 to 50 percent, it is not surprising that disputes over the disposition of these embryos are arising, causing the legal landscape surrounding these technologies to continue to expand.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1073-1105</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1748-720X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/j.1748-720X.2001.tb00340.x</identifier><identifier>PMID: 11508196</identifier><identifier>CODEN: JLAEEO</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><subject>Bioethics ; Contract Services - legislation & jurisprudence ; Contracts ; Cryopreservation ; Disputes ; Divorce ; Divorce - legislation & jurisprudence ; Embryo Disposition - legislation & jurisprudence ; Embryos ; Female ; Fertilization in Vitro ; Frozen human embryos ; Government regulation ; Health technology assessment ; Human reproductive technology ; Humans ; Informed Consent - legislation & jurisprudence ; Laws, regulations and rules ; Male ; Massachusetts ; Ownership - legislation & jurisprudence ; Parents ; Reproductive technologies ; State court decisions ; United States</subject><ispartof>The Journal of law, medicine & ethics, 2001-06, Vol.29 (2), p.197-202</ispartof><rights>2001 American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics</rights><rights>COPYRIGHT 2001 Sage Publications, Inc.</rights><rights>Copyright American Society of Law and Medicine, Incorporated Summer 2001</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c6867-1e9a0c31a485937603e72f33a894b8795a48bbe38dc14f5492bcf82c28c572c3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c6867-1e9a0c31a485937603e72f33a894b8795a48bbe38dc14f5492bcf82c28c572c3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2Fj.1748-720X.2001.tb00340.x$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2Fj.1748-720X.2001.tb00340.x$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,777,781,1413,27848,27906,27907,45556,45557</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11508196$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Daar, Judith F.</creatorcontrib><title>Frozen Embryo Disputes Revisited: A Trilogy of Procreation-Avoidance Approaches</title><title>The Journal of law, medicine & ethics</title><addtitle>J Law Med Ethics</addtitle><description>In recent years, courts have increasingly found them-selves arbiters of disputes in the emotionally charged area of assisted reproductive technologies. Legal disputes are hardly surprising in the world of infertility medicine, where millions of patients spend billions of dollars in efforts to have a child. Increasingly, these efforts produce embryos that are frozen for later use, at once maximizing a couple's chances for success and minimizing the medical intrusiveness that necessarily accompanies most forms of assisted reproductive technologies. But with over 100,000 embryos in frozen storage in the United States and a divorce rate of 40 to 50 percent, it is not surprising that disputes over the disposition of these embryos are arising, causing the legal landscape surrounding these technologies to continue to expand.</description><subject>Bioethics</subject><subject>Contract Services - legislation & jurisprudence</subject><subject>Contracts</subject><subject>Cryopreservation</subject><subject>Disputes</subject><subject>Divorce</subject><subject>Divorce - legislation & jurisprudence</subject><subject>Embryo Disposition - legislation & jurisprudence</subject><subject>Embryos</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Fertilization in Vitro</subject><subject>Frozen human embryos</subject><subject>Government regulation</subject><subject>Health technology assessment</subject><subject>Human reproductive technology</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Informed Consent - legislation & jurisprudence</subject><subject>Laws, regulations and rules</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Massachusetts</subject><subject>Ownership - legislation & jurisprudence</subject><subject>Parents</subject><subject>Reproductive technologies</subject><subject>State court decisions</subject><subject>United States</subject><issn>1073-1105</issn><issn>1748-720X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2001</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>7TQ</sourceid><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AVQMV</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>K50</sourceid><sourceid>M1D</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNqVkl1v0zAUhiMEYmPwF1A0CcQFKf6o42Q3qCptgbUrQpXgznLck9ZdGhc7GS2_HkeNuhVVCOwLW_ZzXh-f8wbBJUYd7Me7VQfzbhJxgr53CEK4U2UI0S7qbB8F54erx36POI0wRuwseObcCnmW0PhpcIYxQwlO4_NgOrTmF5ThYJ3ZnQk_aLepK3DhV7jTTlcwvwp74czqwix2ocnDL9YoC7LSpox6d0bPZakg7G021ki1BPc8eJLLwsGLdr0IZsPBrP8xGk9Hn_q9caTiJOYRhlQiRbHsJiylPEYUOMkplUnazRKeMn-RZUCTucLdnHVTkqk8IYokinGi6EXwei_r3_1Rg6vEWjsFRSFLMLUTHKM05gx58PIPcGVqW_rUBCGUIYIZvYcWsgChy9xUVqpGUfQ4p4yxNPHQ2xPQAkqwsjAl5NofP8SjE7ifc1hrdYp_c8R7pIJttZC1cyIZjf-SSYsqUxSwAOHr3J8e4a8e4EuQRbV0pqibHroj7mrPKWucs5CLjdVraXcCI9EYT6xE4y7RuEs0xhOt8cTWB79s61xna5jfh7ZO88D7PfDT_3v3H9Li83gywCn3Cnyv4KT_5aGN_5Rc2wvtfKEOb0t7K2JOORPfbkZicjNJr4fXTBD6G_VJA1o</recordid><startdate>20010622</startdate><enddate>20010622</enddate><creator>Daar, Judith F.</creator><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><general>SAGE Publications</general><general>Sage Publications, Inc</general><general>Cambridge University Press</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>8GL</scope><scope>ILT</scope><scope>0-V</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7TQ</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88C</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>8AF</scope><scope>8AM</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>AABKS</scope><scope>ABSDQ</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ALSLI</scope><scope>AVQMV</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGRYB</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DHY</scope><scope>DON</scope><scope>DPSOV</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K50</scope><scope>K7.</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>KC-</scope><scope>M0O</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M0T</scope><scope>M1D</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2L</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>S0X</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20010622</creationdate><title>Frozen Embryo Disputes Revisited: A Trilogy of Procreation-Avoidance Approaches</title><author>Daar, Judith F.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c6867-1e9a0c31a485937603e72f33a894b8795a48bbe38dc14f5492bcf82c28c572c3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2001</creationdate><topic>Bioethics</topic><topic>Contract Services - legislation & jurisprudence</topic><topic>Contracts</topic><topic>Cryopreservation</topic><topic>Disputes</topic><topic>Divorce</topic><topic>Divorce - legislation & jurisprudence</topic><topic>Embryo Disposition - legislation & jurisprudence</topic><topic>Embryos</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Fertilization in Vitro</topic><topic>Frozen human embryos</topic><topic>Government regulation</topic><topic>Health technology assessment</topic><topic>Human reproductive technology</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Informed Consent - legislation & jurisprudence</topic><topic>Laws, regulations and rules</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Massachusetts</topic><topic>Ownership - legislation & jurisprudence</topic><topic>Parents</topic><topic>Reproductive technologies</topic><topic>State court decisions</topic><topic>United States</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Daar, Judith F.</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Gale In Context: High School</collection><collection>Gale OneFile: LegalTrac</collection><collection>ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>PAIS Index</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>STEM Database</collection><collection>Criminal Justice Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Philosophy Collection</collection><collection>Philosophy Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Social Science Premium Collection</collection><collection>Arts Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>eLibrary</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Criminology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>PAIS International</collection><collection>PAIS International (Ovid)</collection><collection>Politics Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>Art, Design & Architecture Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Criminal Justice (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Politics Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Criminal Justice</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database</collection><collection>Arts & Humanities Database</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Political Science Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Science Database</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>SIRS Editorial</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>The Journal of law, medicine & ethics</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Daar, Judith F.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Frozen Embryo Disputes Revisited: A Trilogy of Procreation-Avoidance Approaches</atitle><jtitle>The Journal of law, medicine & ethics</jtitle><addtitle>J Law Med Ethics</addtitle><date>2001-06-22</date><risdate>2001</risdate><volume>29</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>197</spage><epage>202</epage><pages>197-202</pages><issn>1073-1105</issn><eissn>1748-720X</eissn><coden>JLAEEO</coden><abstract>In recent years, courts have increasingly found them-selves arbiters of disputes in the emotionally charged area of assisted reproductive technologies. Legal disputes are hardly surprising in the world of infertility medicine, where millions of patients spend billions of dollars in efforts to have a child. Increasingly, these efforts produce embryos that are frozen for later use, at once maximizing a couple's chances for success and minimizing the medical intrusiveness that necessarily accompanies most forms of assisted reproductive technologies. But with over 100,000 embryos in frozen storage in the United States and a divorce rate of 40 to 50 percent, it is not surprising that disputes over the disposition of these embryos are arising, causing the legal landscape surrounding these technologies to continue to expand.</abstract><cop>Oxford, UK</cop><pub>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</pub><pmid>11508196</pmid><doi>10.1111/j.1748-720X.2001.tb00340.x</doi><tpages>6</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1073-1105 |
ispartof | The Journal of law, medicine & ethics, 2001-06, Vol.29 (2), p.197-202 |
issn | 1073-1105 1748-720X |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_71096750 |
source | MEDLINE; Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete; PAIS Index; HeinOnline Law Journal Library |
subjects | Bioethics Contract Services - legislation & jurisprudence Contracts Cryopreservation Disputes Divorce Divorce - legislation & jurisprudence Embryo Disposition - legislation & jurisprudence Embryos Female Fertilization in Vitro Frozen human embryos Government regulation Health technology assessment Human reproductive technology Humans Informed Consent - legislation & jurisprudence Laws, regulations and rules Male Massachusetts Ownership - legislation & jurisprudence Parents Reproductive technologies State court decisions United States |
title | Frozen Embryo Disputes Revisited: A Trilogy of Procreation-Avoidance Approaches |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-17T11%3A25%3A29IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Frozen%20Embryo%20Disputes%20Revisited:%20A%20Trilogy%20of%20Procreation-Avoidance%20Approaches&rft.jtitle=The%20Journal%20of%20law,%20medicine%20&%20ethics&rft.au=Daar,%20Judith%20F.&rft.date=2001-06-22&rft.volume=29&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=197&rft.epage=202&rft.pages=197-202&rft.issn=1073-1105&rft.eissn=1748-720X&rft.coden=JLAEEO&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/j.1748-720X.2001.tb00340.x&rft_dat=%3Cgale_proqu%3EA77355598%3C/gale_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=223502153&rft_id=info:pmid/11508196&rft_galeid=A77355598&rft_sage_id=10.1111_j.1748-720X.2001.tb00340.x&rfr_iscdi=true |