For the second time in two days I’ll do a quick post pointing to something in the New York Times. Today it’s this feature, about the dilemma posed by the large (and increasing) number of frozen embryos. In part this seems to have been inspired by the recent Illinois case I blogged about recently, but it really covers a lot of ground. I think I’ll just touch on a few of the notable points here.
First off, you can see why there is a frozen embryo problem. It is simply routine to create more embryos than are needed. Before eggs could readily be frozen it also made obvious sense. If you didn’t fertilize all the eggs you had, you lost them. Once they were fertilized they could be frozen.
Even with egg freezing it probably makes sense. Continue reading
There’s a story that has been in the news sporadically for the last months. Some time in the past Sofia Vergara (who I guess is a well-known actress?) and Nick Loeb were a couple. They wanted to have kids together and, for reasons I do not know, embarked on IVF. As is typically the case, more embryos were created than were immediately used. Two were frozen for future use. But then the couple split up and faced the question: who gets the embryos?
You can read one version of the most recent news story here and there’s also an interesting essay by Nick Loeb that appeared in the New York Times some weeks ago. I’m a little wary of the facts in that essay, because surely they must recite Loeb’s version of events. (One can assume there is another version out there, too, and we just don’t know it.) Continue reading
From time to time there are disputes about the disposition of frozen embryos. (This has come up here before.) If you think about it, it is not hard to see why. Anyone using IVF creates embryos. You almost always create more than one or two for a variety of reasons. So you don’t end up using them all. Maybe you think you’ll use them later. Maybe you’re not sure. In any event, the common practice is to freeze them. That defers the decision about what to do with them.
Disputes arise when two people who created the embryos (usually each contributing their own genetic material, but not always) split up. Who gets them? This seems to turn in part on what the people want to do with them. In general, in a string of early cases, the person who wanted them destroyed rather than used prevailed. No one, it was said, should be forced to procreate.
(That’s not an entirely satisfactory logic to me–if a man and a woman have sex and she gets pregnant, she can certainly decline to have an abortion and the man will procreate. Continue reading
Here’s a second-hand story that gives me something to think about: A two-year-old boy in Texas has inherited 11 frozen embryos left by his deceased parents. It appears (though I don’t think this is explicitly stated) that were the embryos brought to term, the resulting children would be full genetic siblings of the boy. But as he is only two and won’t be allowed to make decisions regarding the embryos till he is 18, there will be quite an age gap by the time any “sibling” appears if, in fact, they appear at all.
Strange though this seems I think it must be right. There seems to be no doubt that the embryos belonged to the boy’s parents. The parents died (sadly, they were murdered) and left no will and no other instructions regarding the frozen embryos. It’s hard for me to see any alternative at this point except to decide that the embryos–like all other possessions of the parents–devolve to the boy.
This may be treating them like property, but again, what is the alternative? Continue reading
The last of my really sporadic posts concerned a new story about Liam Burke, a child born a little under a year ago. His mother–and here I mean the woman who gave birth to him who is also his legal mother and his social mother–is Kelly Burke. The embryo that became Liam was transferred to Kelly’s uterus after it had spent 19 years cryogenically preserved. (You can just go read the post, if you like.)
Anyway, the story has surfaced again and this time a couple of other things struck me. In fact, I found echoes of the issues raised by the more recent post about the underground market for children.
Here’s the thing. The embryo in question was given to Kelly Burke by a couple who had created these embryos 19 years earlier when they were having children. Continue reading
Yesterday I put up a post about a recent case involving posthumously conceived children–which is to say, children conceived with sperm that had been frozen. You can think of this as a problem created from our ability to keep reproductive materials in long-term storage. Here’s another storage problem that comes up with some regularity–and also one I know I’ve written about before, though I cannot find where. (A bit frustrating, I must say.)
Sometimes couples who are splitting up have frozen embryos to deal with. That was the problem in this instance. Godlove Mbah and Honorine Anong had been married. While they were married they created embryos via IVF and a daughter (now three) was born. There were extra embryos that were frozen for possible future use. And then the couple split up. What happens to those extra embryos? Continue reading
Before I turn to the recent comments I wanted to put up a short post about this news items, which fits nicely with yesterday’s post. As you can easily see, yesterday’s post was about how new technologies have brought us the ability to freeze human eggs for later use. This development will almost assuredly lead to egg banks that more clearly resembles sperm banks and, one would think, a market for eggs that more clearly resembles the market for sperm.
But the ability to freeze eggs opens other avenues besides those that lead to commercial markets. As the article I linked to shows, Orthodox rabbis (at least some orthodox rabbis) are encouraging women to freeze their own eggs for later use. And it makes sense to me that they would do so.
For (some or many? I do not know) Orthodox Jews, a child is Jewish only if the egg from which it developed was from a Jewish woman. Continue reading