Posts Tagged ‘law’

Craig R. Sweet, M.D
Reproductive Endocrinologist
Practice and Medical Director
Embryo Donation International

Introduction

In my last blog, “Why Creating ‘McEmbryos’ is Just Plain Wrong,” I wrote about my concerns regarding the creation of an embryo bank at a California clinic. In this follow-up segment, I want to re-state the issues, discuss the past history of embryo banking in the U.S., provide a list of recently written thoughtful blogs on the topic, offer possible solutions to the dilemma and discuss where we should go from here.

A “Reader’s Digest” version

California Conceptions (CC), as outlined in Alan Zarembo’s L.A. Times article apparently combined donor eggs with donor sperm and divided the resulting embryos among a number of embryo recipients. This process is commonly called a “split or shared donor/donor cycle” but was called “embryo donation” by CC. Any embryos remaining, after the recipients received their allotment, would be cryopreserved and owned by CC.

The road was paved with good intentions

I feel that CC was really trying to offer a cost-affective alternative for patients and that its true intent was to keep the size of its embryo bank as small as possible. Even with good intentions, however, it is quite likely that the embryo bank will grow. In addition, to sanction the creation of a small embryo bank will almost certainly result in the creation of larger embryo banks across the country. These banked embryos for commercial use are what I called “McEmbryos.” There also needs to be a clear distinction between embryo banking for commercial use and the process of banking one’s own embryos (i.e., collecting through multiple IVF retrievals) to be used by individuals to build their families in the future.

I still have three main concerns:

1. I do not feel that embryo banks are appropriate and could result in a plethora of unintended consequences.
2. I feel that corporations, businesses or physician practices should not own embryos.
3. Lastly, the process of a “split or shared donor/donor cycle” should be called “embryo creation” or, at the very least, not called embryo donation.

This has happened before

An article by Gina Kolata in the New York Times in 1997 revealed that “ready-made embryos” were already being made for “adoption.” Columbia-Presbyterian and Reproductive Biology Associates were named in the article as providing “premade” embryos to patients. According to the article, most of the embryos were created when donor egg recipients backed out of the process, but the egg donors still underwent the egg retrieval; their subsequent retrieved donor oocytes were combined with donor sperm. Lori B. Andrews, a professor of law at Chicago-Kent College of Law, was quoted as having concerns about the supermarket approach to embryos while the clinicians thought it wasteful to not retrieve and fertilize the donor oocytes if the egg donors were ready for the retrieval.

In 2007, Center for Genetics and Society Senior Fellow and UC Hastings Law Professor Osagie Obasogie wrote an op-ed for the Boston Globe about a Texas center that had created an embryo bank. He was concerned about the “Wal-Martization” of human embryos, a phrase similar to my “McEmbryos.”

In November of 2012, in response to the N.Y. Times article, Jessica Cussins of the Center for Genetics and Society wrote an excellent blog on the topic, also following-up on the 2007 article by Professor Obasogie. The Texas center was eventually closed and was the subject of an FDA investigation, which eventually found that the creation of an embryo bank did not fall under FDA jurisdiction. John Robertson, Esq., wrote an excellent commentary on the topic in the Bioethics Forum in that same year.

Embryo banks have come and gone, garnering media attention and criticism and I believe it is finally time to set some ethical standards of care about them.

How New York decided to handle the embryo bank issue

Almost five years ago, the state of New York issued regulations for tissue banks and nontransplant anatomic banks, addressing the potential of creating embryo banks:

Embryos shall not be created for donation by fertilizing donor oocytes with donor semen, except at the request of a specific patient who intends to use such embryos for her own treatment. [NYS 52-8.7(h)]

Embryos were not to be created to store in embryo banks but only created at the behest of a specific patient and subsequently owned by that patient. Simply modifying the statement above to include “… such embryos for his/her own treatment,” would address the issue adequately, with the sentence potentially used by various organizations as they hopefully set ethical standards of care.

Potential consequences to the creation of an embryo bank

I have been called an alarmist by some for bringing up what I feel are the following potential dangers of having embryos banks in the U.S:

1. If a small embryo bank is allowed to flourish, then large embryo banks will most certainly follow.
2. Poorly designed and reactive legislation may be created on the state or national level as there may be further calls to regulate what are perceived to be “unregulated IVF facilities.”
3. “Personhood” advocates may become further emboldened to win personhood for the embryos to protect them from becoming “McEmbryos.”

I don’t think these unintended consequences are that farfetched and need to be considered carefully should embryo banks continue unchecked.

My reluctant decision to come forward

About the last thing I wanted to do was to comment on another reproductive endocrine practice comprised of caring staff members dedicated to the care of their patients. I have been criticized for taking such a stand and accused of doing this purely for competitive reasons. In reality, I have been working with the American Society for Reproductive Medicine’s (ASRM) and the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technologies, (SART)  since October of 2011, trying to elicit a set of guidelines prior to the writing of my blog. I far preferred to stay out of the limelight and let the “powers-that-be” decide what should be done next. When the L.A. Times article was published, it de-emphasized the ethical issues and potential unintended consequences of the CC embryo banking practice, so I felt I had no choice but to bring the topic up front and center.

Others responded to the discussion

Several other infertility professionals discussed the ethical issue in articles or blogs in the weeks following the L.A. Times piece. Excluding those that simply summarized the situation, I listed below what I think are some of the better blogs:

Supporting embryo banking

• Marni Soupcoff, Esq., “Marni Soupcoff on the sale of fertilized embryos: How much for the blastocyst in the window?”

Neutral to embryo banking

• Julie Shapiro, Esq., “Custom Made or Off The Rack?”
• Carole C. Wegner, Ph.D., “Embryos for Donation: Where are the ethical boundaries?“
• Elizabeth Swire Falker, Esq., “The Bizarre World of Embryo Banking. Where My Motherhood and Morality Meet”

Against embryo banking

• Andrew Vorzimer, Esq., “Get Pregnant With Built On Spec Embryos Or Get Your Money Back!”
• Jessica Cussins, B.A., “Embryos for Sale: ‘When You Want Them, How You Want Them, or Your Money Back”
• Sara R. Cohen, LL.B., “It’s not about the Money: Why we are So Concerned about a California IVF Clinic’s Anonymous Embryo Program”
• Mikki Morrissette, “Creating Embryos To Sell“

My thanks to all of the authors for taking the time to discuss the issue in an open forum.

Proposed remedies to the current dilemma

From the beginning, I have been offering remedies to the embryo bank dilemma. Although far be it from me to tell CC how to run its business, these are a few ideas I had to offer:

Only patients should own embryos-

No organization, corporation or physician practice should own embryos except in the most extreme circumstances, such as embryo abandonment. With embryo donation, it is most appropriate that the donor facility simply holds the embryos, with the donors still being able to request the return of their embryos, up to the point of transfer into the recipients, should a catastrophic occurrence take place, Attorneys refer to this as being a guardian, a conservator, or a temporary holder of goods. When presenting at the American Bar Association Family Law Section Spring conference in April of 2012, many of the attorneys there strongly supported the concept of conservatorship of the donated embryos over facility ownership.

If the embryos are returned to the donor, it seems appropriate to ask the donors to reimburse the embryo donation facility for all reasonable fees expended in originally obtaining the donated embryos and returning them to the donors. We have been running our embryo donation program this way for over 12 years and we encourage others to do the same.

Excess cryopreserved embryos could be owned by patients-

As best as I can surmise for CC, their business model is to recruit a number of embryo recipients and then transfer 1-2 donor/donor embryos into each recipient. I suggest that any remaining embryos be owned by one or more of the recipients and the entire cycle should not move forward until at least one patient agrees to take the extra cryopreserved embryos, should any exist. Extra charges could be levied to those that secure the remaining embryos. In this way, no embryos remain to create an embryo bank and the CC business model remains essentially intact.

Renaming the process-

The combination of donor sperm with donor eggs and then calling them donated embryos does not fit with the ASRM definition of embryo donation (Ethics Committee of the ASRM, 2009). Embryo creation is a far better term or “shared or split donor/donor cycle” is perhaps even more appropriate. Calling such embryos donated embryos debases the amazing gift that embryo donors provide when donating their embryos.

Who should set the standards?

 

SART has reviewed the concerns stated in my previous blog but I don’t think it yet has arrived at a
conclusion. My understanding is that the ASRM Ethics Committee is to take up the topic during the early months of 2013. As our main guiding societies, I believe they need to take the lead, develop position statements and provide ethical standard of care guidelines for all practices to use.

Once ASRM and SART have provided ethical standard of care guidelines, I will next request that the

Canadian Fertility and Andrology Society and the European Society for Human Reproduction and Embryology (I am a member of both) consider the topic and respond with their own recommendations if they see fit.

It is not out of the realm of possibility that numerous societies could collaborate to form a consensus, such as they did when they banned the support and publication of human reproductive cloning research.

Introduction

Recently, Alan Zarembo of the L.A. Times released a story alleging that California Conceptions was combining donated eggs with donated sperm and called them “donated embryos.” If there were leftover cryopreserved embryos, ownership of the embryos apparently went to California Cryobank (CC). If true, this is an egregious assault on reproductive ethics.

Defining embryo donation

About one-third of all patients undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF) will have excess embryos to cryopreserve. About one-half of these will not be used for reproduction by the patients who created them. (Bangsboll et al., 2004; Lyerly et al., 2010) Embryo donation occurs when patients with unused cryopreserved embryos make the amazing decision to pay it forward and donate their embryos to patients in need. In true embryo donation, the patients own the embryos and make disposition decisions regarding their embryos. It is estimated that 2-10% of all cryopreserved embryos are donated to patients in need.

Why is creating “McEmbryos” so wrong?

Allegedly, California Conceptions would use donor sperm and donor eggs to create embryos. At times, all the resulting embryos would be transferred simultaneously to numerous couples, each receiving approximately two embryos at a time. This would commonly be called a “split donor/donor cycle.” It is, however, an absolute misrepresentation to call them donated embryos. At least in this split donor/donor cycle scenario, where all the embryos were transferred, there would be no cryopreserved embryos left whose ownership was uncertain.

What if not all the embryos were transferred and some were cryopreserved? As I understand, CC transferred no more than two embryos at a time to numerous patients, with the remainder cryopreserved. The residual cryopreserved embryos became the property of CC.

According to the article, egg and sperm donor profiles are sent to prospective recipients. As soon as CC received a “buy-in” from a few patients, the “donor embryos” were created from the donor eggs and sperm. Who made the decision to combine these two donors? What happens to the left over cryopreserved embryos? The article stated that dozens of embryos would be created through the combination of a pair of donors with the embryos then frozen while CC looked for patients who wanted them. And yet, the clinic claimed to have only ten sets of cryopreserved “donated embryos” in their tanks at any given time.

While they stated they didn’t want to create a bank, it would appear that this is precisely what was being done.

I feel there is a potential conflict of interest on the part of any IVF facility regarding the disposition decision of any cryopreserved embryos that they own. Patients normally have options such as using them to build their family, donation to science, donation to a laboratory for quality assurance testing and personnel training, keeping them cryopreserved forever, and finally, donating them to patients in need (embryo donation).

With the methods described in the article, a number of logistical and ethical questions arise:

1. Were the sperm and egg donors fully aware of what was to be done with the resulting embryos?
2. How did the IVF practice decide which sperm and egg donors should be combined? Was this decision made through market research? If so, who made these decisions?
3. Is anyone tracking where all these donor-donor conceived offspring end up?
4. Who ultimately owns the cryopreserved embryos? In the article, the physician interviewed said the clinic owned them when they were frozen
5. Who makes the disposition decisions regarding these embryos? Will the IVF facility that owns the embryos be likely to make disposition decisions that do not benefit their bottom line? Who has the best interests of the cryopreserved embryos at heart when the embryos are owned by the IVF facility? Is it possible that CC is the entity that is really “donating” their remaining cryopreserved embryos
6. What happens to the cryopreserved embryos if the practice closes or is sold?
7. Perhaps most important, although it may not be a problem presently but for the future, what happens to the cryopreserved embryos that are never chosen?

While certainly not meaning to demean the cryopreserved embryos, I can’t help but think of these dono/donor cryopreserved embryos as fast food embryos or “McEmbryos.” I can just see the patients coming in, looking above the cash register to the menu above and ordering a “Number 3,” which has a burger (i.e., bright, blonde-haired, blue-eyed egg donor) and fries (i.e., handsome, athletic and tall sperm donor) and ends up getting the order supersized to boot (i.e., requesting twins). I should write clearly that this is not the current method CC uses to to match recipients to remaining cryopreserved embryos but the slippery slope exists and other practices may eventually emulate this process

What did EDI try to do over the past year to remedy the problem?

We suspected what might be happening at CC well over a year ago but didn’t have proof. We approached the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) who examined the information and eventually sent it on to the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technologies (SART). SART did an investigation agreeing with our preliminary assessment. Unfortunately, CC was not a member of SART so they had little influence with CC.

There was some discussion of placing CC on the Center for Disease and Control’s (CDC) radar, asking that they potentially audit CC. I am not aware if this was ever done.

There was some discussion of revising the Ethic’s Committee Opinion on embryo donation detailing the inappropriateness of creating “McEmbryos,” but in the recent revision sent out to all ASRM members to review this past August contained no such language. I contacted ASRM and volunteered to help write the couple of paragraphs that would address the issue but I was never contacted. My current understanding is that the ASRM Ethics Committee will be taking up this issue in the beginning of 2013 and I am hopeful they will make a stand against creating “McEmbryos.”

Is it really ASRM or SART’s fault?

ASRM and SART are membership organizations. Anyone can join ASRM whereas SART is only open to IVF practices. These entities are not designed to truly police their members. Certainly, they can bar them from membership, but let’s face it, this is really not much of a punishment. Most patients are not really aware if a practice is a member of either organization, so expulsion does more to protect ASRM and SART from criticism than it does to protect the patients.

In reality, I am not suggesting that ASRM or SART begin sanctioning their members. These organizations are made up of bright individuals wanting what is best for members and patients alike. I don’t believe ASRM or SART could ever expose themselves to legal liability and try to be anything more than what they were originally designed to be.

I feel criticism towards ASRM and/or SART is potentially misplaced. While I do feel these organizations can certainly take a stand against the creation of “McEmbryos,” they can only provide educational materials and information to members and patients. never entering the realm of fining, condemning practices or policing practices. That is simply not their job.

I am not being insensitive to the needs of the patients

California Conceptions is providing amazingly healthy embryos to patients in need. How could anyone not be touched the story twin girls born to a single 41 year-old woman? There is no question that the donor/donor split cycle can be far more cost effective than many other options. The ends to this process are what we all strive for – a healthy family.

Call me old-fashioned but I still feel there are instances where the ends cannot justify the means. Are we are loosing all respect for the embryos and treating them utterly as a commodity? The slippery slope is becoming quite steep. Are we ready for expanding banks of unclaimed embryos across the country owned by practices or physicians and not the patients? I’m sorry but the means being used here are fraught with uncertainty and may result in a list of unintended consequences.

What are the potential repercussions of the L.A. Times story?

At least this election year is over. I had grave concerns that the story would break early in the election cycle and would become a political football, resulting in a series of consequences around the country. I still believe we are at risk in the following ways:

• • Poorly designed and reactive legislation may yet be created on state or national level
• • This story may motivate the “Personhood” advocates by encouraging them to win personhood for embryos thereby protect them from becoming “McEmbryos”
• • There will be “guilt by association,” leaving other legitimate embryo donation facilities open to criticism and ridicule
• • All of this will reflect poorly on basic IVF facilities that are frequently viewed as unregulated, even though we are accountable to more regulatory agencies than any other area of medicine

There may be significant backlash regarding this story and we should all be prepared to answer questions that may arise from the media, our peers and our patients.

How can embryo donation programs hold but not own the donated embryos?

At Embryo Donation International (EDI), the embryo donors are still able to request that their donated embryos be returned if needed. For example, if the children of an embryo donor were tragically killed in a motor vehicle accident, it seems absolutely appropriate that the cryopreserved donated embryos should be sent back to the donors. To discourage this from being done without good reason, transportation costs for returning the embryos, which is estimated to be $300, are the responsibility of the original donors.

Once the embryos are transferred into the recipients, however, they now “own” them. In this way, EDI never truly owns the donated embryos. We are the conservator and protect the embryos while never making any disposition decisions regarding their fate. We never own the donated embryos and we encourage all embryo donation facilities adopt this model of conservatorship.

What can be done to correct the current problem?

From my perspective, we have a few options:

1. Various membership organizations such as ARSM, Pacific Coast Fertility Society (PCFS), SART and RESOLVE could release position statements condemning the creation of “donated embryos” without a destination. This could help guide public opinion.
2. Perhaps the embryo donation programs would be willing to sign a contract stating that they will not participate in the creation of embryos without a destination. Programs willing to sign and honor the contract would be adhering to the highest of ethical standards.
3. Through the court of public opinion and if the L.A. Times article is accurate, patients may no longer want to participate in what they feel in an unethical practice.
4. Legislative action on the part of California may be necessary but this will take time and a great deal of expertise. We run the risk, however, of having well-meaning legislative actions spilling over and harming the process of embryo donation or IVF itself.
5. CC itself may need to modify its business model by allowing patients to own the cryopreserved embryos.

Something really needs to be done. I don’t feel that this unethical practice should continue. A corporation, business or physician practice should never own embryos, no matter how brief. These embryos are also not truly donated unless you feel CC is able to donate the excess cryopreserved embryos. The question is if we should play an active or a passive roll in determining what takes place. I personally prefer the active roll so you can count EDI in on doing our best to guide the process.

Sour grapes? Nope, just sour taste!

CC is a potential competitor of EDI. I have made this clear to each and every person I have spoken to regarding this current dilemma. When we were contemplating the expansion of our ten-year embryo donation program into EDI, we also looked at the option of a money-back guarantee such as is offered by CC. Understanding the delivery rates for recipients of truly donated embryos ranges from 27-45%, the likelihood of returning the majority of the payments back to recipients made it unlikely we could even keep our doors open. Most “shared risk” options also charge a premium on top of the normal fees. Recalling that embryo recipients are emotionally and financially drained, the idea of tacking on a large additional fee seemed unfair to the recipients and quite impractical to the process. Embryo donation works for recipients, in part, because it is more cost-effective than many other options.

So you see, it is not “sour grapes” that is guiding my writing; it is just a sour taste. If the article was accurate, I feel strongly that creating “McEmbryos” is an affront to IVF and embryo donation programs, misleading to embryo recipients and totally unfair to the cryopreserved embryos that are currently waiting to be chosen.

If you agree, please co-sign this blog….

We are going to do something a bit different with this blog. We are strongly encouraging not just the routine comments that follow our blog but we are also asking that practices, patients and interested parties who agree that creating “McEmbryos” is ethically inappropriate sign below. By endorsing the statement below, we will hopefully begin to separate ourselves from such entities that practice the “McEmbryo” method of “embryo donation,” moving forward with a resolution that will work best for all.

By signing below, I do hereby agree that creating banks of cryopreserved embryos is ethically unjustifiable and support sound solutions that will adhere to the highest of ethical standards supporting patients and cryopreserved embryos in the best possible way.

 

By: Craig R. Sweet, M.D.
Reproductive Endocrinologist
Info@EmbryoDonation.com

The “Defunding” of a Government-Supported Program

On March 2, 2012, it was reported that the Obama Administration wanted to defund the embryo donation/adoption awareness federal program that has been run by the Office of Population Affairs, part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Spokespeople from Nightlight Christian Adoptions, the National Embryo Donation Center and Snowflakes Embryo Adoption programs were quoted as opposing the defunding decision. It should be noted they all had received or were receiving funding from the federal program, so their reactions were not unexpected.

Initially, the federal program was created in response to President Bush’s push to use cryopreserved embryos to create families and steer away donations from human embryonic stem cell research. Since 2002, over 22 million dollars has been spent by the federal government on the awareness programs.

The Predictable Response

Certainly during an election year, the firestorm that followed was probably predictable.

There were calls stating that the Obama Administration was “pro-abortion,”

I’ve never met such a person in my entire life, although many have been “pro-choice.”

Congressman Chris Smith, a New Jersey Republican, was quoted a saying, “Assertions that leftover embryos are better off dead so that their stem cells can be derived is dehumanizing and cheapens human life.”

Come on now… this decision does not mean that all cryopreserved will be destroyed. It simply means that all of us who are dedicated to the concept of embryo donation need to work harder and smarter with non-federal funds to make certain patients are aware of the embryo donation option.

Mailee Smith, staff counsel at the “pro-life” Americans United for Life, was quoted, “What we’re seeing is the elimination of the moral solution.”

Nothing could be further from the truth. Many programs throughout the country offer embryo donation and will continue to do so long after federal funding disappears.

Could we all just trim the hyperbole a bit?

Is it a Coincidence that the Phrase “Embryo Adoption” Predated the Personhood Amendments?

I suggest paying less attention to the hype and instead examine the realities of the ways that federal funding can influence the competitive free market with unintended consequences. The propagation of the term “embryo adoption” sprouted the appearance of the personhood amendments and legislation, which are focused on declaring that eight-cell early embryos are people. The consequences of these enactments are far reaching, including monumental legislative changes, restrictions on the care of women, and severe restrictions to the treatment of the infertile patient. (See my previous blog on the Mississippi Amendment here.)

Not Sour Grapes but Concerns Regarding Discrimination

Let it be understood that Embryo Donation International (EDI) applied last year for the federal funding in question, but we were not awarded a grant. In partnership with professors at Florida Gulf Coast University, we proposed thirteen different fresh and innovative projects to increase awareness, as well as provide embryo donation services. While we were disappointed, we were not surprised that the organizations, for the most part, receiving funding had been granted it before and this was our first submission. EDI was not previously dependent on the funding so there were no significant changes in our day-to-day operations. The projects are slowly being rolled out, funded instead by SRMS/EDI.

What bothered us was that over the years some of the organizations receiving the bulk of the funding were faith-based and discriminated against some patients. While the projects themselves were potentially more neutral, the organizations were not. Health and Human Services (HHS) apparently looked only at the proposals in determining the awards, making the awarding of grants potentially flawed.

The grant process essentially compartmentalized the proposals. If an organization provided certain services, which the federal government did not fund directly, but the organization was awarded a grant to provide other services, the government essentially compartmentalized the grant money separate from the procedures it didn’t directly support. I understand the concept but do not feel the grant committees should have made the decision based only on the grant proposals. They also needed to take into account the overall views and beliefs of the organization requesting funding. There needs to be times when the government must look at the trees and not just the leaves.

I believe there were instances where the funds should be withheld. The funded organizations should have provided a minimum standard of practice guidelines in line with the non-discrimination clauses outlined in the grants. Entities awarded the grants should not have discriminated with regards to race, religion, ancestry, gender, marital status or sexual preference.

Being a faith-based embryo donation/embryo adoption organization also directly or indirectly excludes some patients, making it uncertain if the federal government should directly support such facilities, especially taking into account the separation of church and state. I know that faith-based embryo donation/embryo adoption entities were strongly supported by past administrations but should a neutral organization that does not discriminate and makes all faiths feel totally welcome be placed at a higher priority now? Is this more ethical and fair? Is this a better use of the shrinking tax dollars? Is it time for the federal government to reconsider their goals?

If both discrimination and faith-based issues were actually taken into account, many of the organizations discussed here never would have received the original federal funds.

It is not that I want these organizations to go away. Quite the contrary, they often do a great job, provide excellent services and fill a much-needed niche. Their funding should, however, be through sources other than the federal government because of the bias inherent to their provision of services.

Can the Government Afford Providing the Grants?

Understanding that the U.S. is running a severe deficit, when are we ever going to be willing to make difficult decisions? How are we ever going to get control of the budget if we can’t trim existing programs that may serve an important few when the many need assistance? We all need to look at the big picture and understand that “business as usual” is not practical in the current economic climate. I may be falling on the sword a bit, but shouldn’t we all be willing to sacrifice? Hey, I’m all for creating little taxpayers to help pay off the deficit. I’m just not sure that we can afford to do so through a government in the red. To do so with organizations that discriminate makes absolutely no sense at all.

In Summary

If federal funding is to continue, it needs to be provided to organizations, and not necessarily my own, which do not discriminate and are not faith-based. In addition, giving “embryo adoption” programs federal funds so they can support personhood amendments should be reconsidered. Having the government eventually spend even more money and time contesting the amendments and statutes in court defies understanding. Perhaps the congressional appropriations committees, who will make the final decision regarding federal funding, will take the concepts of non-discrimination and non faith-based alternatives into account and fund the programs with new and fairer goals.

Rest assured, unlike the rhetoric would lead one to believe, embryo donation is here to stay, regardless of the decisions of Congress and the grant process. How do we know? We’ve been providing the service for 11 years and will continue to do so in the years ahead, without cessation, as long as there are cryopreserved embryos available to donate.

Craig R. Sweet, M.D.
Reproductive Endocrinologist
Embryo Donation International
www.EmbryoDonation.com

A Guest Post by: Harold Eskin, Esq.

New laws are beginning to appear on the books of many states that support “embryo adoption.” “Embryo Adoption” is placed in quotation marks because that phrase alone has unique connotations that I discuss briefly below. The term embryo “donation” is also a commonly used expression describing giving one patient’s/couple’s cryopreserved (frozen) embryo(s) to another patient/couple trying to expand their family, but who otherwise have been unsuccessful through natural and/or advanced reproductive techniques.

Georgia was the first state to pass an embryo adoption bill (2009) that provided an opportunity for intended parents to go through an adoption procedure to obtain the right to gestate a thawed frozen embryo. Other states, such as Florida, have embryo donation statutes on its books, which allow a couple to receive a donation from another (open or anonymous) of a frozen embryo. While the end results may appear to be the same, the road getting there and implications of using the different phrases are vastly different.

The Georgia law, which was championed by Right to Life groups, treated a frozen embryo in much the same way as it would a child already born. The new law and procedures mimic that of other adoption provisions and gives the frozen embryo many of the same rights and considerations of a born child, including using a “best interest of the child” standard in the adoption analysis. This philosophy is consistent with the concept that a child’s rights (as compared to the mother’s) begins at conception rather than birth and has implications in the abortion-right to choose/right to life arguments ongoing disagreements and potential laws expressing same.

Florida and many other states have historically treated frozen embryos as the property of the parents, who have the right to donate or dispose of the frozen embryos as they saw fit. The recipients received the frozen embryos as property under the respective laws of their state and could use or dispose of the frozen embryos as they saw fit. This process allowed for freer access to unused frozen embryos and discouraged the abandonment/discarding of them.

The agenda of the Georgia law was not necessarily meant to “protect” the frozen embryos but was designed to advance a political agenda of creating additional barriers to a women’s right to choose (i.e. restrict abortion) and to further control the reproductive rights of patients by discouraging the use of advanced reproductive techniques, such as in vitro fertilization as well as the cryopreservation and storage of excess embryos.

Up to now, there have been few attempts to export the Georgia concept in other states. This is perhaps due to the country’s economic challenges, but this possible trend needs to be closely monitored. The implications of providing “personhood” to embryos are far and wide and the Georgia statute is one of the first successful salvos to be launched with others most certainly to follow. Mississippi is currently targeted for a constitutional amendment to give embryos personhood and many other states are next in line for challenges that may significantly impair the health and reproductive care of women.

Harold Eskin, Esq.
www.LegalSurrogacy.com
HalEskin@LegalSurrogacy.com
1420 SW 47^th Street
Cape Coral, FL 33904
239-549-5551

References:
Georgia Statute:
http://statutes.laws.com/georgia/title-19/chapter-8/article-2/19-8-41

Florida Statute:
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0742/Sections/0742.14.html