Precommitment stategies [sic] for disposition of frozen embryos.
The question of whether to enforce agreements to implant frozen embryos after divorce has become a major concern for the 300 clinics and thousands of couples who use infertility services every year. Although courts in New York and Tennessee support enforcement, recent decisions by appellate courts in Massachusetts and New Jersey have refused to enforce such agreements on the ground that courts should not force people to reproduce. This article analyzes conflicts over enforcement of agreements for disposition of frozen embryos in terms of the precommitment strategies that persons use to plan their lives. It shows that refusal to enforce contracts for frozen embryos is unfair to the parties who relied on them in undertaking invasive infertility treatments, and possibly unconstitutional. It also addresses the extent to which precommitments for rearing rights and duties in resulting children should be enforced, if agreements to implant embryos are recognized.
Robertson
J A
JA
School of Law, University of Texas at Austin, USA.
D016223:Advance Directives / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D003068:Coercion; D032982:Contracts / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D015925:Cryopreservation; D004243:Divorce; D019924:Embryo Disposition / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D004624:Embryo Transfer; D005260:Female; D005307:Fertilization in Vitro / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D012098:Reproduction / Q000941:ethics; D013997:Time Factors; D014481:United States