Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
H and W were married in 1992. After W suffered a miscarriage, they sought help from the Center. W learned that she had a condition that prevented her from becoming pregnant. They decided to attempt in vitro fertilization. The consent form from the Center describes the procedures of such a process. That consent form also contained language discussing the control and disposition of the pre-embryos. It stated that control and disposition belong to the Patient and her Partner. Both H and W signed the consent form with an attached agreement for their signatures. They allowed all their tissues to be given to the IVF program unless the dissolution of their marriage by court order specified who was to take control of the tissues, etc. The process was carried out in May 1995, and it resulted in eleven pre-embryos. Four were transferred to W and she, in fact, became pregnant and gave birth in 1996. In September 1996, they separated, and W informed H that she wanted the remaining pre-embryos discarded. H did not agree. W filed for divorce and also sought an order regarding the embryos. H demanded an order that the other embryos be donated to other infertile couples. W filed a motion and stated that H and W made the decisions about the embryos when they were married with the intent to use them and that there was never any discussion over the disposition of them if they were not to remain married. H stated that there was an agreement and that if the pre-embryos were not used by them, they should be donated to infertile couples. Final judgment of divorce was entered in 1998, and shortly thereafter, the trial court granted W’s motion for summary judgment on the embryo issues. The court found that they did the procedure to create a family and since that purpose was no longer attainable, they should be destroyed. The court also noted that H was fertile and could have another child by natural means. The Appellate Division affirmed. H argued that his constitutional right to procreate had been violated, but the court disagreed in that he was still able to procreate. H appealed contending his constitutional rights had been violated and that his rights for procreation outweighed those of W’s right not to procreate because her right to bodily integrity was not implicated. H argues that religion and the state’s right in protecting potential life take precedence over W’s limited interests. H also argues that the court should have enforced the clear agreement to give the pre-embryos a chance for life. H claims procedural due process was violated because he was not given the opportunity to introduce evidence of the agreement and that summary judgment is inappropriate for a case involving such novel issues and facts. W contends that individuals should not be bound by agreements requiring them to enter into family relationships or seek to regulate intimate decisions involving family and parenthood. W contends that in the absence of an express agreement the courts should not imply such an agreement. W contends a donation would violate her right to procreate.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co