Frozen Embryo Research Paper
January 9, 2014
Regulations in the Rights Involving the Ownership of Frozen Embryos One in eight couples in the United States face the problem of infertility (Erickson, Erickson). These couples cannot produce a child through intercourse, but if they wish to have a child of their own they need to look for other options. These options are referred to as assisted reproduction technologies, or otherwise known as “ART” (Erickson, Erickson). The technologies included in ART are in vitro fertilization, gamete intrafallopian transfer, introcytoplasmic sperm injection, and so on (Erickson, Erickson). In vitro fertilization is the process involving the creation of embryos in a laboratory. The first baby born by in vitro fertilization was in 1978. …show more content…
In the simplest of terms, genetic information from both the mother and father, including the egg and sperm, is taken and used to create an embryo that can then be implanted into the mother’s womb where a child then grows. Typically, several embryos are made in case of failure of one of the embryos or if the couple wishes to have more children later on. These embryos are stored frozen in clinics throughout the country (Grady). Complications in today’s relationships and ways of life dictate the need for better regulations in rights regarding the ownership of frozen embryos. There are more than 400,000 frozen embryos stored in clinics throughout the country (Grady). The unfortunate part is that several of these embryos may remain frozen forever. When parents decide they do not want to have any more children, they need to decide what to do with their remaining embryos. Most often, these options include donation to research, donation to another couple, destroying of the remaining embryos, or the continued preservation of them frozen at the clinic (Erickson, Erickson). Couples’ options, however, vary from state to state. Some states have certain restrictions for the available options for extra embryos. For example, “In states that do allow performing research on embryos, there are also laws to ensure that the patient is fully aware and consents to a specific type of research for which his or her excess embryos will be used” (Erickson, Erickson). This means that if a couple wishes to donate the remaining embryos to research, there are specifications for the type of research they are able to donate to, and once they have decided on where the embryos are donated to, they cannot change their decision. There are also some states that do not allow the destruction of the embryos (Erickson, Erickson). The decision of what to do with the embryos is usually affected by several factors: personal or religious beliefs, financial constraints, ethical implications, future family planning prospects and more (Controversial Debate: What To Do With Unused Embryos?). Once the couple decides what they want to do with the embryos, if they ever do come to a final decision, more complications are brought to the table. When donating the embryos to another infertile couple, the requirements and processes vary. It could be just some paperwork or it could be “as involved as hiring an attorney to navigate a legal labyrinth and locate a recipient family” (Beil). Most couples wish to give the embryos up for research, but that option is not available everywhere, which is not fair to the couples that wish to do so. Kelly Damron, who has stored embryos at a clinic in Arizona, wanted to donate the embryos to research, but her clinic did not give her that option. She said that she never even thought to ask about the “possibilities of unused embryos” (Beil). The problem there is that she had to ask if she wanted the information. Discussing the options for unused embryos is the physician’s responsibility and should be taken care of before the embryos are even created so there are not any more situations like Kelly Damron’s. There needs to be regulations in the options that are available to the couples. Once the couple has made their decision, the process of finalizing that decision needs to be a lot simpler or else the 400,000 frozen embryos will remain in the clinics year after year, without any purpose. Another option that not many turn to is allowing the embryos to thaw. Couples want another option besides the thawing that they cannot get (Beil). Some couples have found other options including allowing the embryos to thaw and having a ceremony in remembrance of the embryos as well as finding a doctor who would “implant the embryos into the woman at a time pregnancy is unlikely” (Beil). Not all can be as fortunate to find such options and these alternatives are not easily achieved nor commonly offered. In vitro fertilization has solved the problem of infertility for many couples, but once the couple is finished having children, that is when the complications arise. Couples tend to get attached to their created embryos, just as they would get attached to their children, which is technically what the embryos are. Kim and Walt Best are a couple that have been storing embryos at the clinic at Duke University for 15 years now. They have no use for the remaining stored embryos, but Kim is too attached to them to give them up (Grady). She believes that these embryos have the possibility of becoming wonderful people, and she would not want to donate them to a couple that would not give them a proper upbringing. She would not want to donate them to research because she does not want to give them up, and she definitely would not want to discard them because that is like killing her own children (Grady). Kim and Walt are just one example of couples that cannot decide on what to do with their remaining embryos. There needs to be a better decision-making process of what to with the embryos. Better regulations involving the right of the couple to decide need to be implemented and the options available for couples need to be changed. Andrea Cinnamond is a woman who was infertile who also turned to in vitro fertilization (Beil). She now has three children because of IVF, but three of her embryos remain stored frozen at a clinic. She, like many other mothers, did not know what she wanted to do with the extra embryos when the time to decide came. She never thought that the decision would be so difficult to make; she had no clue what the right thing to do would be. She has to pay $600 every year that she keeps the embryos frozen, and every year she thinks she will be able to finalize her decision, but every year it remains to be just as difficult (Beil). Michelle DuCrane, who lives in Austin Texas, has 6 frozen embryos being stored in a clinic and she continues to pay for their preservation. She does not want to have another child because of her age and her financial status. She does not feel as attached to the embryos as she does her actual daughter, but she still cannot give them up. She continues to pay $40 per month to keep them stored. This seems to be happening more often than not. Michelle stated, “What do people do? You have all of these embryos in all of these labs. Are people going to keep doing what I 'm doing and pay the $40 a month ad infinitum?” (Beil). Couples face a dead end. They do not want to keep storing the embryos frozen at a clinic, but they are not offered an alternative that is appealing enough to them. A recent survey at the University of California in San Francisco was taken. This survey consisted of 58 couples in which 72% said they “were undecided about the fate of their stored embryos” (Beil). If there were better regulations before the embryos were created, so many couples would not be in this situation. Nadya Suleman, better known as octo-mom, implanted all of her eight embryos at the same time because she “could not bear to dispose any of them” (Beil). Several mothers ask to have several embryos implanted at once so there is a better chance of pregnancy and so they can do it one time and be done (Friedman).
Another survey was taken that included nine different clinics’ patients. 53% of the patients did not want to donate their embryos to another couple and 43% did not want their embryos discarded (Grady). 66% said they would donate the embryos to research, but that is not offered at all of the clinics, and 20% said they would store their embryos “frozen forever” (Grady). If most of the couples would willingly donate their remaining embryos to research, then that option needs to be more available at clinics throughout the country. The problem results from couples who desperately want children and will do whatever is necessary to “maximize their chances”; when involving in vitro fertilization, this means the couple wants to create as many embryos as possible (Grady). This is a huge problem. It is completely necessary to have a limit on the amount of embryos a couple can create at a time to avoid the growing number of embryos being stored without a purpose in clinics throughout the country. Other countries throughout the world have much stricter regulations regarding the ownership of frozen embryos. For example, fertility clinics in Italy are not permitted to create more embryos than what can be put into the uterus at a time (Grady). Countries like the Netherlands and France also have laws regarding the preservation of frozen embryos, including a law against the right to donate the embryos for adoption (Grady). In New Mexico as well as Louisiana, the couples only have two options: store the embryos until another couple wants to adopt them or implant them in the mother they belong to. When couples do not want any more children, it does not mean they will be willing to give the embryos up for adoption. Some manage to accept the fact that they must, while others completely abandon their embryos and allow them to remain in preservation at the clinics indefinitely (Howell). As anyone can imagine, the longer the embryos stay frozen at the clinics, the less of a chance of survival when thawed. One solution to this problem of excess embryos being stored is giving more information to couples early in the process of creating embryos. One woman who has given her remaining embryos for research stated “she wished there had been more discussion about the extra embryos early in the process. If she had known more, she said, she might have considered creating fewer embryos in the first place” (Grady). It is the clinics’ responsibility to advise the couples on what they are getting themselves into and they should be aware of the complications that come with extra embryos. Because they are unaware, they cannot make the decision of what to do with the unused embryos. 70% of patients put off the decision for five years or more and continue to pay the storage fees (Concerns about Embryo Disposition). One of the biggest debates involving embryos is whether they are considered people or property. Here in the United States they are considered property (Frequent Questions: Adopting Parents). If the embryo is considered property, this means they are treated like property. The selling, throwing away and trading of embryos are completely okay if they are truly considered “property” (Howell). If the embryo is considered person, it has the rights every person does. This is a topic that cannot be decided fully on as a whole country because of states like Louisiana and New Mexico; they consider the embryos “people”. In Louisiana, they are considered “juridical persons”, meaning they are an “entity created by law” that has a “distinct identity and certain rights and duties” (Frequent Questions: Adopting Parents). They are also referred to as an “artificial person”. The couple that owns the “property” can make the final decision with what to do with the embryos. This is never easy or simple for the couples because of the complications in today’s life and relationships. A judge in Illinois would not “dismiss a wrongful death suit against a fertility clinic in Chicago” for destroying nine embryos. The embryos were destroyed with permission from the couple that owned them, but the judge felt as if the couple ended the embryos’ lives (Colb). The judge’s reasoning was “‘a pre-embryo is a 'human being ' ... whether or not it is implanted in its mother 's womb.’ For this conclusion, the judge cited another Illinois law that specifically finds that an ‘unborn child is a human being from the time of conception and is, therefore, a legal person’”(Colb). If the couple did not make so many embryos to begin with, they would have never of had to face the problem with wanting to destroy them. There needs to be regulations prior to the creation of the embryos to avoid the continuation of excessive frozen embryos stored in clinics. Several complications arise when a couple that stores embryos in clinics decide to get divorced. They must go through a process in court deciding what to do with the embryos, whether to destroy them or to decide who will gain custody of the embryos. Davis vs. Davis was a case that involved two divorced spouses who never decided on what to do with the embryos if they ever got divorced. They both felt differently when it came to the fate of their frozen embryos. Mr. Davis was completely content with discarding the embryos, but Ms. Davis wanted to donate the embryos to another couple. Mr. Davis ended up being favored in the conclusion of the case for two reasons: Ms. Davis stating she would continue to attempt to have children and him having to live with the knowledge of a child of his is somewhere in the world being raised by a couple he does not know. Seven embryos were destroyed after that divorce, which is completely unethical and not in favor of the embryo (Erickson, Erickson). There have been several similar cases to Davis vs. Davis with similar outcomes. Before the process of creating the embryos, there needs to be discussion on what to do if the couple gets divorced, so several viable embryos will not be destroyed so often because of divorce. Another problem that may arise is if a couple that has ownership of frozen embryos stored in a clinic dies unexpectedly. What happens to the embryos? Who decides what happens to them then? In Australia, a situation like this occurred in 1983. This caused several controversies to arise in bioethical discussions (Alcorn). Even though this occurred in a different country, it is extremely possible that the same event could occur in the United States. It is not ethical for people to create these embryos without discussing the possible, yet tragic, events that could very well occur in the future. The complications will never become less complicated if the necessary discussions are not happening. The fertility clinics claim to have regulations, but if the number of excess frozen embryos continues to grow, I am not convinced. Parents need to know what they are getting in to. They need to know what in vitro fertilization is in deep understanding. They need to discuss all the possibilities that may complicate decisions in the future. They need to know their options. “This field is screaming for oversight, regulation and control… If you are going to make babies in new and novel ways, you have to be sure it 's in the interest of the baby.” This was stated by Arthur Caplan, the director of Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania, over 15 years ago (Weiss). 15 years ago these excess embryos were brought into the light as a problem; 15 years later, it is still a problem. The number of unused embryos continues to grow quickly; there needs to be something done to prevent the growth of excess frozen embryos stored in clinics. Each state is given the right to decide the restrictions and the ways the fertility clinics will be run. The clinics should be better regulated through the federal government not the state government, that way there would be fewer complications involving the rights of ownership. The U.S. is one of the least regulated countries when it comes to fertility clinics (Riggan). The majority of the 400 to 500 clinics that are considered to be professional organizations do not follow the guidelines they claim to be following (Riggan). Some clinics do discuss the options for unused embryos before IVF, but because of the lack of regulation, most clinics do not and only go by contract law (Gamete and Embryo Ownership). This is a problem that needs to be fixed by the federal government and the federal government only. When Barack Obama took office, he reduced the restrictions that were placed on stem cell research (Beil).
This allowed for more embryos donated to research. More couples are willing to have their embryos donated to research rather than any other alternative, but donating to stem cell research is not yet “readily available” (Concerns about Embryo Disposition). The Fertility Clinics of Illinois have made this option available to their patients. If the couple wishes to, they can donate their unused embryos to Harvard for the purpose of stem cell research (Controversial Debate: What To Do With Unused Embryos?). This research could lead to the cure for several diseases including Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s disease (Beil). While some may view donating to research is just like killing the embryos, they may very well be helping to save lives that suffer from the diseases that the research is helping to cure. More clinics need to have the option of donating the unused embryos to research; however, state governments still have the right to make their own restrictions on this type of research, which makes it hard for all clinics to have the option if their state has restrictions against it (Beil). If most scholars, courts, and legislatures believe that the federal government needs to make laws to settle the problems with the ownership of frozen embryos, then why has it not happened? This brings us back to the person versus property problem. We cannot determine the rights of embryos without knowing its legal status (Pollet). Until that legal status is final, there will always be complications when getting involved with in vitro fertilization and trying to decide what to do with excess
embryos. If embryos are considered people then they are granted the right of life, which means the destruction of the embryos is not legal (Pollet). When they are considered property, it is the owners’ rights that are taken into account. There is also a third status, the “special respect” approach, which includes the rights of all parties. One option that has been in discussion is to force the couple to have the embryos implanted since they have already taken the first step (Pollet). That, of course, is not in favor in most cases. In 2001, a study showed that about 26% of patients, 107 out of 404, storing embryos at a clinic in New England passed their three-year storage deadline. While 16 of these couples were still in treatment, the clinic struggled to get in contact with the other 91. After three months, more than half responded, all deciding differently on what to do with the embryos. I believe that all clinics need to have a storage limit. This forces the couples to make a decision whether they want to or not. Even though those 91 couples were hard to find, the clinic was still able to find them over time and only 2 of those 91 were still undecided (Klock, Sheinin, Kazer). If all clinics had a time limit on the storage, there would not be so many embryos with undecided fates. Studies have also shown that more couples want to change their initial decision on what to do with the embryos. At the same New England clinic a study of 41 couples showed that 29% did not want to change their decision, but 71% wished to make a change. The changes the couples made varied; 13 out of 22 initially wanting to dispose of the embryos changed to donating them or using them, 9 out of 11 decided not to donate their embryos and switch to another option and 7 out of 8 couples wished to use or dispose of the embryos instead of donating them (Klock, Sheinin, Kazer). I believe that this clinic runs their IVF program efficiently. They make sure they can contact the couples, they have a limit on time for storage and they allow the couples to change their minds. If more clinics ran their IVF programs this way, there would not be so many unused embryos. The number of embryos being stored frozen in clinics has been increasing faster and faster. If regulations are not implemented soon, there will be thousands and thousands more embryos stored in clinics that will never have a different fate. I have previously said that couples want an option that is not available, but why can it not be available? The couples want to do what is best for the “baby”, or the embryo. They do not want to do something that would be disrespectful to the embryo. That is why the uncommon options that I have previously stated should become more common: implanting the embryo into the uterus at an infertile time or giving the embryo a ceremony during the process of thawing. These two options would be the most popular among the couples with unused embryos, but unfortunately most couples do not have either of these options to choose from. The clinics do not have any problem with storing the embryos, considering they get paid for each couple that has embryos stored. If the couple disappears and is no longer making the payments, the embryos are then destroyed and discarded. It truly is a great business. There are half of a million frozen embryos that are stored in clinics throughout the country and they all have to be paid for; that is a lot of money. Why should they make regulations when business for them is booming? It comes down to what is ethical and what is not. What these fertility clinics are doing is not ethical for various reasons I have already stated. They do not offer the options that would appeal to the patients, they do not discuss the options fully before the in vitro fertilization and they do not make an effort to help the couples in finalizing their decisions. The United States of America is one of the least regulated countries in the reproduction and fertility industry. Several countries, especially in Europe, have implemented strict regulations that control in vitro fertilization. This avoids excessive amounts of unused embryos in clinics, which is a major problem in the United States. There is no reason why so many other countries can have strict regulations when we do not. The regulations need to made through the federal government, not the state governments. Many clinics are different because they have the right to make their own regulations based on what state they belong to. Couples do not know what the “right decision” is. They want to do what is best for the embryo as well as what is best for them. Until the legal status of the embryo is finalized and made clear, the right choice for the embryo will never be clear. Do the embryos have the right to life or are they pieces of property? “In many ways, infertility is a numbers game -- more embryos created means more tries for success” (Beil). In vitro fertilization continues to be very popular among infertile couples, but there needs to be better regulations. Couples get to the point when they are so desperate to have a child that they do not want to discuss possible complications that may arise. No couple would want to discuss what happens to the embryos when they get divorced or if they die. It is the fertility clinics’ responsibility to make sure the couple is aware of all possible complications and outcomes that may result prior to the in vitro fertilization. They need to discuss what the couple will be able to do with remaining embryos when they finish having children. If the couple does not find any of the options appealing, there should be more alternatives for the couple to choose from. They also should be able to walk away from the in vitro process at that point as another alternative. In today’s world, there are new complications we face every day. For an infertile couple that turned to in vitro fertilization, the fate of their frozen embryos may be one of those complications. The legal status of the frozen embryos needs to be clear. Once that happens, regulations involving the options couples have to change. The United States is one of the most accomplished countries in the world, but not when it comes to the fate of the half of a million frozen embryos stored throughout the country. “Improved systems for embryo disposition require appropriate counseling of couples, documentation of disposition choices, and clear definition of time limits for storage. The current findings highlight the need for ongoing contact between programs and couples to facilitate reassessment and confirmation of decisions regarding embryo disposition” (Klock, Sheinin, Kazer). That quote sums up what has to change throughout the country. Once more clinics improve their programs by keeping in frequent contact with the couples, having a time limit on storage and having better documentation, the number of unused embryos in the country will go down. Until these changes are made, the fates of thousands, possibly millions, frozen embryos will never be decided.
Work Cited
Alcorn, Randy. "Are Frozen Embryos Persons Worthy of Protection?" EPM. Eternal Perspective Ministries, 18 Jan. 2010. Web. 08 Jan. 2014. . (5)
Beil, Laura. "The Fate of Frozen Embryos." Parenting.com. Parenting, n.d. Web. 08 Jan. 2014. . (11)
Beil, Laura. "What Happens to Extra Embryos after IVF?" CNN. Cable News Network, 1 Sept. 2009. Web. 08 Jan. 2014. . (6)
Colb, Sherry F. "Frozen Embryo = Person?" Alternet. AlterNet, 23 Feb. 2005. Web. 08 Jan. 2014. . (4)
"Concerns about Embryo Disposition - 500,000 Frozen Embryos Currently in Storage." Concerns about Embryo Disposition - 500,000 Frozen Embryos Currently in Storage. News-Medical.Net, 5 Dec. 2008. Web. 08 Jan. 2014. . (14)
"Controversial Debate: What To Do With Unused Embryos?" Medical News Today. MediLexicon International, 20 Aug. 2009. Web. 08 Jan. 2014. . (15)
Erickson, Theresa M., Meghan T. Erickson. “What Happens To Embryos When A Marriage Dissolves? Embryo Disposition And Divorce.” WMitchell.edu. William Mitchell Law Review, Web. 08 Jan. 2014. .
"Frequent Questions: Adopting Parents." EmbryoAddoption.org. Embryo Adoption Awareness Center, n.d. Web. 06 Jan. 2014. .
Friedman, Emily. "Should IVF Be Regulated?" ABC News. ABC News Network, 20 Nov. 2008. Web. 08 Jan. 2014. .
"Gamete and Embryo Ownership." The Future of Assisted Reproductive Technologies. The Future of Assisted Reproductive Technologies, 2014. Web. 08 Jan. 2014. .
Grady, Denise. “Parents Torn Over Fate of Frozen Embryos.” NYTimes. The New York Times Company, 04 Dec. 2008. Web. 08 Jan. 2014. .
Howell, Shirley D. "The Frozen Embryo: Scholarly Theories, Case Law, and Proposed State Regulation." Humanlifereview.com. The Human Life Foundation, Inc., 2013. Web. 07 Jan. 2014. .
Klock, Susan C., Sandra Sheinin, and Ralph R. Kazer. "The Disposition of Unused Frozen Embryos." The Disposition of Unused Frozen Embryos — NEJM. Massachusetts Medical Society, 5 July 2001. Web. 08 Jan. 2014. .
Pollet, Susan L. "In Vitro Fertilization: Who Gets the Pre-Embryos After Divorce?" BabyMed.com. BabyMed, n.d. Web. 08 Jan. 2014. . (12)
Riggan, Kirsten. "Regulation (or Lack Thereof) of Assisted Reproductive Technologies in the U.S. and Abroad | The Center for Bioethics & Human Dignity." Cbhd.org. The Center for Bioethics & Human Dignity, 5 Mar. 2011. Web. 08 Jan. 2014. . (10)
Weiss, Rick. “Babies in Limbo: Laws Outpaced by Fertility Advances.” WashingtonPost.com. The Washington Post Company, 08 Feb. 1998. Web. 08 Jan. 2014. . (8)
Regulations in the Rights Involving the Ownership of Frozen Embryos One in eight couples in the United States face the problem of infertility (Erickson, Erickson). These couples cannot produce a child through intercourse, but if they wish to have a child of their own they need to look for other options. These options are referred to as assisted reproduction technologies, or otherwise known as “ART” (Erickson, Erickson). The technologies included in ART are in vitro fertilization, gamete intrafallopian transfer, introcytoplasmic sperm injection, and so on (Erickson, Erickson). In vitro fertilization is the process involving the creation of embryos in a laboratory. The first baby born by in vitro fertilization was in 1978. …show more content…
In the simplest of terms, genetic information from both the mother and father, including the egg and sperm, is taken and used to create an embryo that can then be implanted into the mother’s womb where a child then grows. Typically, several embryos are made in case of failure of one of the embryos or if the couple wishes to have more children later on. These embryos are stored frozen in clinics throughout the country (Grady). Complications in today’s relationships and ways of life dictate the need for better regulations in rights regarding the ownership of frozen embryos. There are more than 400,000 frozen embryos stored in clinics throughout the country (Grady). The unfortunate part is that several of these embryos may remain frozen forever. When parents decide they do not want to have any more children, they need to decide what to do with their remaining embryos. Most often, these options include donation to research, donation to another couple, destroying of the remaining embryos, or the continued preservation of them frozen at the clinic (Erickson, Erickson). Couples’ options, however, vary from state to state. Some states have certain restrictions for the available options for extra embryos. For example, “In states that do allow performing research on embryos, there are also laws to ensure that the patient is fully aware and consents to a specific type of research for which his or her excess embryos will be used” (Erickson, Erickson). This means that if a couple wishes to donate the remaining embryos to research, there are specifications for the type of research they are able to donate to, and once they have decided on where the embryos are donated to, they cannot change their decision. There are also some states that do not allow the destruction of the embryos (Erickson, Erickson). The decision of what to do with the embryos is usually affected by several factors: personal or religious beliefs, financial constraints, ethical implications, future family planning prospects and more (Controversial Debate: What To Do With Unused Embryos?). Once the couple decides what they want to do with the embryos, if they ever do come to a final decision, more complications are brought to the table. When donating the embryos to another infertile couple, the requirements and processes vary. It could be just some paperwork or it could be “as involved as hiring an attorney to navigate a legal labyrinth and locate a recipient family” (Beil). Most couples wish to give the embryos up for research, but that option is not available everywhere, which is not fair to the couples that wish to do so. Kelly Damron, who has stored embryos at a clinic in Arizona, wanted to donate the embryos to research, but her clinic did not give her that option. She said that she never even thought to ask about the “possibilities of unused embryos” (Beil). The problem there is that she had to ask if she wanted the information. Discussing the options for unused embryos is the physician’s responsibility and should be taken care of before the embryos are even created so there are not any more situations like Kelly Damron’s. There needs to be regulations in the options that are available to the couples. Once the couple has made their decision, the process of finalizing that decision needs to be a lot simpler or else the 400,000 frozen embryos will remain in the clinics year after year, without any purpose. Another option that not many turn to is allowing the embryos to thaw. Couples want another option besides the thawing that they cannot get (Beil). Some couples have found other options including allowing the embryos to thaw and having a ceremony in remembrance of the embryos as well as finding a doctor who would “implant the embryos into the woman at a time pregnancy is unlikely” (Beil). Not all can be as fortunate to find such options and these alternatives are not easily achieved nor commonly offered. In vitro fertilization has solved the problem of infertility for many couples, but once the couple is finished having children, that is when the complications arise. Couples tend to get attached to their created embryos, just as they would get attached to their children, which is technically what the embryos are. Kim and Walt Best are a couple that have been storing embryos at the clinic at Duke University for 15 years now. They have no use for the remaining stored embryos, but Kim is too attached to them to give them up (Grady). She believes that these embryos have the possibility of becoming wonderful people, and she would not want to donate them to a couple that would not give them a proper upbringing. She would not want to donate them to research because she does not want to give them up, and she definitely would not want to discard them because that is like killing her own children (Grady). Kim and Walt are just one example of couples that cannot decide on what to do with their remaining embryos. There needs to be a better decision-making process of what to with the embryos. Better regulations involving the right of the couple to decide need to be implemented and the options available for couples need to be changed. Andrea Cinnamond is a woman who was infertile who also turned to in vitro fertilization (Beil). She now has three children because of IVF, but three of her embryos remain stored frozen at a clinic. She, like many other mothers, did not know what she wanted to do with the extra embryos when the time to decide came. She never thought that the decision would be so difficult to make; she had no clue what the right thing to do would be. She has to pay $600 every year that she keeps the embryos frozen, and every year she thinks she will be able to finalize her decision, but every year it remains to be just as difficult (Beil). Michelle DuCrane, who lives in Austin Texas, has 6 frozen embryos being stored in a clinic and she continues to pay for their preservation. She does not want to have another child because of her age and her financial status. She does not feel as attached to the embryos as she does her actual daughter, but she still cannot give them up. She continues to pay $40 per month to keep them stored. This seems to be happening more often than not. Michelle stated, “What do people do? You have all of these embryos in all of these labs. Are people going to keep doing what I 'm doing and pay the $40 a month ad infinitum?” (Beil). Couples face a dead end. They do not want to keep storing the embryos frozen at a clinic, but they are not offered an alternative that is appealing enough to them. A recent survey at the University of California in San Francisco was taken. This survey consisted of 58 couples in which 72% said they “were undecided about the fate of their stored embryos” (Beil). If there were better regulations before the embryos were created, so many couples would not be in this situation. Nadya Suleman, better known as octo-mom, implanted all of her eight embryos at the same time because she “could not bear to dispose any of them” (Beil). Several mothers ask to have several embryos implanted at once so there is a better chance of pregnancy and so they can do it one time and be done (Friedman).
Another survey was taken that included nine different clinics’ patients. 53% of the patients did not want to donate their embryos to another couple and 43% did not want their embryos discarded (Grady). 66% said they would donate the embryos to research, but that is not offered at all of the clinics, and 20% said they would store their embryos “frozen forever” (Grady). If most of the couples would willingly donate their remaining embryos to research, then that option needs to be more available at clinics throughout the country. The problem results from couples who desperately want children and will do whatever is necessary to “maximize their chances”; when involving in vitro fertilization, this means the couple wants to create as many embryos as possible (Grady). This is a huge problem. It is completely necessary to have a limit on the amount of embryos a couple can create at a time to avoid the growing number of embryos being stored without a purpose in clinics throughout the country. Other countries throughout the world have much stricter regulations regarding the ownership of frozen embryos. For example, fertility clinics in Italy are not permitted to create more embryos than what can be put into the uterus at a time (Grady). Countries like the Netherlands and France also have laws regarding the preservation of frozen embryos, including a law against the right to donate the embryos for adoption (Grady). In New Mexico as well as Louisiana, the couples only have two options: store the embryos until another couple wants to adopt them or implant them in the mother they belong to. When couples do not want any more children, it does not mean they will be willing to give the embryos up for adoption. Some manage to accept the fact that they must, while others completely abandon their embryos and allow them to remain in preservation at the clinics indefinitely (Howell). As anyone can imagine, the longer the embryos stay frozen at the clinics, the less of a chance of survival when thawed. One solution to this problem of excess embryos being stored is giving more information to couples early in the process of creating embryos. One woman who has given her remaining embryos for research stated “she wished there had been more discussion about the extra embryos early in the process. If she had known more, she said, she might have considered creating fewer embryos in the first place” (Grady). It is the clinics’ responsibility to advise the couples on what they are getting themselves into and they should be aware of the complications that come with extra embryos. Because they are unaware, they cannot make the decision of what to do with the unused embryos. 70% of patients put off the decision for five years or more and continue to pay the storage fees (Concerns about Embryo Disposition). One of the biggest debates involving embryos is whether they are considered people or property. Here in the United States they are considered property (Frequent Questions: Adopting Parents). If the embryo is considered property, this means they are treated like property. The selling, throwing away and trading of embryos are completely okay if they are truly considered “property” (Howell). If the embryo is considered person, it has the rights every person does. This is a topic that cannot be decided fully on as a whole country because of states like Louisiana and New Mexico; they consider the embryos “people”. In Louisiana, they are considered “juridical persons”, meaning they are an “entity created by law” that has a “distinct identity and certain rights and duties” (Frequent Questions: Adopting Parents). They are also referred to as an “artificial person”. The couple that owns the “property” can make the final decision with what to do with the embryos. This is never easy or simple for the couples because of the complications in today’s life and relationships. A judge in Illinois would not “dismiss a wrongful death suit against a fertility clinic in Chicago” for destroying nine embryos. The embryos were destroyed with permission from the couple that owned them, but the judge felt as if the couple ended the embryos’ lives (Colb). The judge’s reasoning was “‘a pre-embryo is a 'human being ' ... whether or not it is implanted in its mother 's womb.’ For this conclusion, the judge cited another Illinois law that specifically finds that an ‘unborn child is a human being from the time of conception and is, therefore, a legal person’”(Colb). If the couple did not make so many embryos to begin with, they would have never of had to face the problem with wanting to destroy them. There needs to be regulations prior to the creation of the embryos to avoid the continuation of excessive frozen embryos stored in clinics. Several complications arise when a couple that stores embryos in clinics decide to get divorced. They must go through a process in court deciding what to do with the embryos, whether to destroy them or to decide who will gain custody of the embryos. Davis vs. Davis was a case that involved two divorced spouses who never decided on what to do with the embryos if they ever got divorced. They both felt differently when it came to the fate of their frozen embryos. Mr. Davis was completely content with discarding the embryos, but Ms. Davis wanted to donate the embryos to another couple. Mr. Davis ended up being favored in the conclusion of the case for two reasons: Ms. Davis stating she would continue to attempt to have children and him having to live with the knowledge of a child of his is somewhere in the world being raised by a couple he does not know. Seven embryos were destroyed after that divorce, which is completely unethical and not in favor of the embryo (Erickson, Erickson). There have been several similar cases to Davis vs. Davis with similar outcomes. Before the process of creating the embryos, there needs to be discussion on what to do if the couple gets divorced, so several viable embryos will not be destroyed so often because of divorce. Another problem that may arise is if a couple that has ownership of frozen embryos stored in a clinic dies unexpectedly. What happens to the embryos? Who decides what happens to them then? In Australia, a situation like this occurred in 1983. This caused several controversies to arise in bioethical discussions (Alcorn). Even though this occurred in a different country, it is extremely possible that the same event could occur in the United States. It is not ethical for people to create these embryos without discussing the possible, yet tragic, events that could very well occur in the future. The complications will never become less complicated if the necessary discussions are not happening. The fertility clinics claim to have regulations, but if the number of excess frozen embryos continues to grow, I am not convinced. Parents need to know what they are getting in to. They need to know what in vitro fertilization is in deep understanding. They need to discuss all the possibilities that may complicate decisions in the future. They need to know their options. “This field is screaming for oversight, regulation and control… If you are going to make babies in new and novel ways, you have to be sure it 's in the interest of the baby.” This was stated by Arthur Caplan, the director of Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania, over 15 years ago (Weiss). 15 years ago these excess embryos were brought into the light as a problem; 15 years later, it is still a problem. The number of unused embryos continues to grow quickly; there needs to be something done to prevent the growth of excess frozen embryos stored in clinics. Each state is given the right to decide the restrictions and the ways the fertility clinics will be run. The clinics should be better regulated through the federal government not the state government, that way there would be fewer complications involving the rights of ownership. The U.S. is one of the least regulated countries when it comes to fertility clinics (Riggan). The majority of the 400 to 500 clinics that are considered to be professional organizations do not follow the guidelines they claim to be following (Riggan). Some clinics do discuss the options for unused embryos before IVF, but because of the lack of regulation, most clinics do not and only go by contract law (Gamete and Embryo Ownership). This is a problem that needs to be fixed by the federal government and the federal government only. When Barack Obama took office, he reduced the restrictions that were placed on stem cell research (Beil).
This allowed for more embryos donated to research. More couples are willing to have their embryos donated to research rather than any other alternative, but donating to stem cell research is not yet “readily available” (Concerns about Embryo Disposition). The Fertility Clinics of Illinois have made this option available to their patients. If the couple wishes to, they can donate their unused embryos to Harvard for the purpose of stem cell research (Controversial Debate: What To Do With Unused Embryos?). This research could lead to the cure for several diseases including Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s disease (Beil). While some may view donating to research is just like killing the embryos, they may very well be helping to save lives that suffer from the diseases that the research is helping to cure. More clinics need to have the option of donating the unused embryos to research; however, state governments still have the right to make their own restrictions on this type of research, which makes it hard for all clinics to have the option if their state has restrictions against it (Beil). If most scholars, courts, and legislatures believe that the federal government needs to make laws to settle the problems with the ownership of frozen embryos, then why has it not happened? This brings us back to the person versus property problem. We cannot determine the rights of embryos without knowing its legal status (Pollet). Until that legal status is final, there will always be complications when getting involved with in vitro fertilization and trying to decide what to do with excess
embryos. If embryos are considered people then they are granted the right of life, which means the destruction of the embryos is not legal (Pollet). When they are considered property, it is the owners’ rights that are taken into account. There is also a third status, the “special respect” approach, which includes the rights of all parties. One option that has been in discussion is to force the couple to have the embryos implanted since they have already taken the first step (Pollet). That, of course, is not in favor in most cases. In 2001, a study showed that about 26% of patients, 107 out of 404, storing embryos at a clinic in New England passed their three-year storage deadline. While 16 of these couples were still in treatment, the clinic struggled to get in contact with the other 91. After three months, more than half responded, all deciding differently on what to do with the embryos. I believe that all clinics need to have a storage limit. This forces the couples to make a decision whether they want to or not. Even though those 91 couples were hard to find, the clinic was still able to find them over time and only 2 of those 91 were still undecided (Klock, Sheinin, Kazer). If all clinics had a time limit on the storage, there would not be so many embryos with undecided fates. Studies have also shown that more couples want to change their initial decision on what to do with the embryos. At the same New England clinic a study of 41 couples showed that 29% did not want to change their decision, but 71% wished to make a change. The changes the couples made varied; 13 out of 22 initially wanting to dispose of the embryos changed to donating them or using them, 9 out of 11 decided not to donate their embryos and switch to another option and 7 out of 8 couples wished to use or dispose of the embryos instead of donating them (Klock, Sheinin, Kazer). I believe that this clinic runs their IVF program efficiently. They make sure they can contact the couples, they have a limit on time for storage and they allow the couples to change their minds. If more clinics ran their IVF programs this way, there would not be so many unused embryos. The number of embryos being stored frozen in clinics has been increasing faster and faster. If regulations are not implemented soon, there will be thousands and thousands more embryos stored in clinics that will never have a different fate. I have previously said that couples want an option that is not available, but why can it not be available? The couples want to do what is best for the “baby”, or the embryo. They do not want to do something that would be disrespectful to the embryo. That is why the uncommon options that I have previously stated should become more common: implanting the embryo into the uterus at an infertile time or giving the embryo a ceremony during the process of thawing. These two options would be the most popular among the couples with unused embryos, but unfortunately most couples do not have either of these options to choose from. The clinics do not have any problem with storing the embryos, considering they get paid for each couple that has embryos stored. If the couple disappears and is no longer making the payments, the embryos are then destroyed and discarded. It truly is a great business. There are half of a million frozen embryos that are stored in clinics throughout the country and they all have to be paid for; that is a lot of money. Why should they make regulations when business for them is booming? It comes down to what is ethical and what is not. What these fertility clinics are doing is not ethical for various reasons I have already stated. They do not offer the options that would appeal to the patients, they do not discuss the options fully before the in vitro fertilization and they do not make an effort to help the couples in finalizing their decisions. The United States of America is one of the least regulated countries in the reproduction and fertility industry. Several countries, especially in Europe, have implemented strict regulations that control in vitro fertilization. This avoids excessive amounts of unused embryos in clinics, which is a major problem in the United States. There is no reason why so many other countries can have strict regulations when we do not. The regulations need to made through the federal government, not the state governments. Many clinics are different because they have the right to make their own regulations based on what state they belong to. Couples do not know what the “right decision” is. They want to do what is best for the embryo as well as what is best for them. Until the legal status of the embryo is finalized and made clear, the right choice for the embryo will never be clear. Do the embryos have the right to life or are they pieces of property? “In many ways, infertility is a numbers game -- more embryos created means more tries for success” (Beil). In vitro fertilization continues to be very popular among infertile couples, but there needs to be better regulations. Couples get to the point when they are so desperate to have a child that they do not want to discuss possible complications that may arise. No couple would want to discuss what happens to the embryos when they get divorced or if they die. It is the fertility clinics’ responsibility to make sure the couple is aware of all possible complications and outcomes that may result prior to the in vitro fertilization. They need to discuss what the couple will be able to do with remaining embryos when they finish having children. If the couple does not find any of the options appealing, there should be more alternatives for the couple to choose from. They also should be able to walk away from the in vitro process at that point as another alternative. In today’s world, there are new complications we face every day. For an infertile couple that turned to in vitro fertilization, the fate of their frozen embryos may be one of those complications. The legal status of the frozen embryos needs to be clear. Once that happens, regulations involving the options couples have to change. The United States is one of the most accomplished countries in the world, but not when it comes to the fate of the half of a million frozen embryos stored throughout the country. “Improved systems for embryo disposition require appropriate counseling of couples, documentation of disposition choices, and clear definition of time limits for storage. The current findings highlight the need for ongoing contact between programs and couples to facilitate reassessment and confirmation of decisions regarding embryo disposition” (Klock, Sheinin, Kazer). That quote sums up what has to change throughout the country. Once more clinics improve their programs by keeping in frequent contact with the couples, having a time limit on storage and having better documentation, the number of unused embryos in the country will go down. Until these changes are made, the fates of thousands, possibly millions, frozen embryos will never be decided.
Work Cited
Alcorn, Randy. "Are Frozen Embryos Persons Worthy of Protection?" EPM. Eternal Perspective Ministries, 18 Jan. 2010. Web. 08 Jan. 2014. . (5)
Beil, Laura. "The Fate of Frozen Embryos." Parenting.com. Parenting, n.d. Web. 08 Jan. 2014. . (11)
Beil, Laura. "What Happens to Extra Embryos after IVF?" CNN. Cable News Network, 1 Sept. 2009. Web. 08 Jan. 2014. . (6)
Colb, Sherry F. "Frozen Embryo = Person?" Alternet. AlterNet, 23 Feb. 2005. Web. 08 Jan. 2014. . (4)
"Concerns about Embryo Disposition - 500,000 Frozen Embryos Currently in Storage." Concerns about Embryo Disposition - 500,000 Frozen Embryos Currently in Storage. News-Medical.Net, 5 Dec. 2008. Web. 08 Jan. 2014. . (14)
"Controversial Debate: What To Do With Unused Embryos?" Medical News Today. MediLexicon International, 20 Aug. 2009. Web. 08 Jan. 2014. . (15)
Erickson, Theresa M., Meghan T. Erickson. “What Happens To Embryos When A Marriage Dissolves? Embryo Disposition And Divorce.” WMitchell.edu. William Mitchell Law Review, Web. 08 Jan. 2014. .
"Frequent Questions: Adopting Parents." EmbryoAddoption.org. Embryo Adoption Awareness Center, n.d. Web. 06 Jan. 2014. .
Friedman, Emily. "Should IVF Be Regulated?" ABC News. ABC News Network, 20 Nov. 2008. Web. 08 Jan. 2014. .
"Gamete and Embryo Ownership." The Future of Assisted Reproductive Technologies. The Future of Assisted Reproductive Technologies, 2014. Web. 08 Jan. 2014. .
Grady, Denise. “Parents Torn Over Fate of Frozen Embryos.” NYTimes. The New York Times Company, 04 Dec. 2008. Web. 08 Jan. 2014. .
Howell, Shirley D. "The Frozen Embryo: Scholarly Theories, Case Law, and Proposed State Regulation." Humanlifereview.com. The Human Life Foundation, Inc., 2013. Web. 07 Jan. 2014. .
Klock, Susan C., Sandra Sheinin, and Ralph R. Kazer. "The Disposition of Unused Frozen Embryos." The Disposition of Unused Frozen Embryos — NEJM. Massachusetts Medical Society, 5 July 2001. Web. 08 Jan. 2014. .
Pollet, Susan L. "In Vitro Fertilization: Who Gets the Pre-Embryos After Divorce?" BabyMed.com. BabyMed, n.d. Web. 08 Jan. 2014. . (12)
Riggan, Kirsten. "Regulation (or Lack Thereof) of Assisted Reproductive Technologies in the U.S. and Abroad | The Center for Bioethics & Human Dignity." Cbhd.org. The Center for Bioethics & Human Dignity, 5 Mar. 2011. Web. 08 Jan. 2014. . (10)
Weiss, Rick. “Babies in Limbo: Laws Outpaced by Fertility Advances.” WashingtonPost.com. The Washington Post Company, 08 Feb. 1998. Web. 08 Jan. 2014. . (8)