Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Commentary
  • Published:

Children by choice: reproductive technologies and the boundaries of personal autonomy

Nature Medicine volume 8, pages S23–S29 (2002)Cite this article

Unlike other countries that regulate assisted reproduction, the US has largely left this field to the domain of professional self-regulation and market preferences. The reason lies both in the confused jurisprudence of reproductive liberty and the paralysing effect of the abortion debate on US politics. The debate surrounding cloning, however, has galvanized both activists and the government to revisit the question of regulation, and recent cases in the US Supreme Court suggest that if the political will to regulate this field is found, governmental authority to intervene in areas such as pre-implantation diagnosis, gamete donation and surrogacy might well be upheld, even in the face of constitutional challenges.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

References

  1. A joint NIH/FDA meeting on the regulation of assisted reproduction is scheduled for September 2002.

  2. 42 U.S.C. 263a-1(a) (1995).

  3. As of June 2002, legislation on human cloning has been enacted in seven states: California, Iowa, Lousiana, Michigan, Missouri, Rhode island, and Virginia. See National Conference of State Legislatures, http://www.ncsl.org/

  4. Blank, R. & Merrick, J.C. Human Reproduction, Emerging Technologies, and Conflicting Rights, 96–98 (Congressional Quarterly, 1995).

    Google Scholar 

  5. La. Rev. Stat. Ann. 9:122 (West 2000); Va. Code Ann. 32.1–289.1 (Michie 1999).

  6. Statement On The Principled Conduct Of Genetics Research (approved by HUGO Council, March 21, 1996), Eubios Journal of Asian and International Bioethics 6, 59–60 (1995) (based on Knoppers, B.M., Hirtle, M. & Lormeau, S. Ethical issues in International Collaborative Research on the Human Genome: The HGP and the HGDP. (1995)); Schenker, J.G. FIGO statements and world experience. Hum. Reprod. 1998 13: 2047–2049; Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights (UNESCO, November 1997); Additional Protocol to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Dignity of the Human Being with regard to the Application of Biology and Medicine, on the Prohibition of Cloning Human Beings (Strasbourg: Council of Europe 1997); European Parliament and Council Directive on the Legal Protection of Biotechnological Inventions COM(97)446 final.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Shirai, Y. Ethical debate over Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis in Japan. Eubios Journal of Asian and International Bioethics 11, 132–136 (2001); Higuchi, N., “Parenthood under Japanese Law,” in Frontiers Of Family Law (Andrew Bainham & Judge David Pearl eds., 2d ed. 1995).

    Google Scholar 

  8. Ferrando, G. “Artificial Insemination in Italy,” in Creating The Child (Donald Evans & Neil Pickering eds., The Hague, The Netherlands, 1996).

    Google Scholar 

  9. Wertz, D.C. International Perspectives on Ethics and Human Genetics. Suffolk U. L. Rev. 27 1411, 1443–45 (1993); Lorio, K.V. The Process of Regulating Assisted Reproductive Technologies: What We Can Learn from Our Neighbors - What Translates and What Does Not. Loy. L. Rev. 45, 247 (Summer 1999).

    Google Scholar 

  10. Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Human Fertilisation and Embryology, HMSO, July 1984 (Cm. 9314).

  11. See http://anatomy.med.unsw.edu.au/cbl/embryo/law/law1.htm for a list of commissions and resulting Australian state and federal legislation.

  12. Viville, S. and Ménézo, Y. Human embryo research in France. Hum. Reprod. 17, 261–263 (2002); Opinions of the National Consultative Ethics Committee for Health and Life Sciences, http://www.ccne-ethique.org/english/start.htm.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. For example, U.K. Surrogacy Arrangements Act (1985) and Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act (1990) (Britain), the Infertility (Medical Procedures) Act (1984) (Victoria, Australia), and various French statutes and regulations available at http://www.ccne-ethique.org/english/start.htm.

  14. Blank, R.H. Regulating Reproduction (Columbia University Press, New York, 1990).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  15. American Society for Reproductive Medicine (http://www.asrm.org/Media/Ethics/ethicsmain.html); American Medical Association (http://www.ama-assn.org/apps/pf_online/pf_online?f_n=browse&doc=policyfiles/E-2.00.HTM&&s_t=&st_p=&nth=1&nxt_pol=policyfiles/CEJA/E-000.01.HTM&); Association of Reproductive Health Professionals (http://www.arhp.org/arhpframeadvocacy.html); American Society of Human Genetics (http://www.faseb.org/genetics/ashg/policy/pol-00.htm); American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Code of Ethics (http://www.acog.com/).

  16. Assisted Reproductive Technologies: Analysis and Recommendations for Public Policy (New York State Task Force on Life and Law, April 1998); Cloning Human Beings (June 1997) and Ethical Issues in Human Stem Cell Research (September 1999) (National Bioethics Advisory Commission, http://bioethics.georgetown.edu/nbac/); see also the President's Council on Bioethics (http://www.bioethics.gov/).

  17. http://www.fda.gov/cber/genetherapy/clone.htm

  18. Charo, R.A. Embryo Research: An Argument for Federal Funding. Journal of Women's Health 4 (6), 603–608 (1995); Charo, R.A. The Hunting of the Snark: The Moral Status of Embryos, Right-to-Lifers, and Third World Women. Stanford Law and Policy Review 6 (2), 1–38 (1995); Charo, R.A. Bush's Stem Cell Compromise: A Few Mirrors? Hastings Center Report 6 (December 2001) 31 (6); Charo, R.A. “Bush's Stem Cell Decision May Have Unexpected — and Unintended – Consequences,” Chronicle of Higher Education (September 7, 2001)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Litowitz v. Litowitz, Docket No. 70413-9, Supreme Court of the State of Washington, (06/13/2002).

  20. Davis v. Davis, 842 S.W.2d 588, 597 (Tenn. 1992); York v. Jones, 717 F. Supp. 421, 426-27 (E.D. Va. 1989) (holding that Cryopreservation Agreement entered into between gamete donor/parents and IVF clinic “fully recognized plaintiffs' property rights in the pre-zygote and limited [the defendant clinic's] rights as bailee to exercise dominion and control over the pre-zygote”). Some states, however, have enacted specific statutes that grant pre-embryos specific legal protection as “persons.” e.g., LA. REV. STAT. ANN. @@9121-133 (West 2000).

  21. J.B. v. M.B., 170 N.J. 9 (2001) (holding that ordinarily, the party wishing to avoid procreation should prevail); Kass v. Kass, 91 N.Y. 2d 554 (1998) (enforcing preconception contract requiring donation of embryo for research in absence of agreement otherwise by progenitors); A.Z. v. B.Z, 431 Mass. 150 (2000) (holding preconception contract unenforceable when it would result in unwanted parentage by one gamete provider).

  22. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535 (1942).

  23. Griswold v.Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965) (striking down statute which forbid use of contraceptives on grounds that statute invaded zone of privacy surrounding marriage relationship); Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972) (striking down statute forbidding distribution of contraceptives to unmarried persons on equal protection grounds).

  24. Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) (establishing unrestricted right to an abortion in first trimester); Planned Parenthood of Missouri v. Danforth, 428 U.S. 52 (1976) (striking down provisions of abortion statute requiring spousal consent and parental consent).

  25. Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U.S. 678 (1977).

  26. Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972).

  27. Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992).

  28. While Justice O'Connor's opinion in Pennsylvania v. Casey (505 U.S. 833 (1992)) does speak to the notion of psychological liberty, her subsequent statements reflect a concern more for gender equality in society than for unfettered personal choice in all matters touching, no matter how remotely, on human reproduction.

  29. Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986).

  30. Washington vs. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 (1997), allowing a right to suicide only if bodily integrity is threatened by unwanted medical intervention, thus implicating a fundamental right to refuse the bodily invasions of treatment, even at the risk of death. Where continued existence does not entail bodily invasions, then no right to suicide (or to assistance in suicide) exists.

  31. Rao, R. Property, Privacy and the Human Body. Boston University Law Review 80, 359–460 (2000); Robertson, J.A. Children Of Choice: Freedom And The New Reproductive Technologies (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ; 1994)

    Google Scholar 

  32. Weiss, R. “Clinton Presses Ban on Human Cloning; Statement a Response to Fears of Attempts Unless Congress Acts,” The Washington Post, January 11, 1998; Kranish, M. & Leonard, M. “Cloning ban foes unite, conquer; Bipartisan effort stalled Bush plan,” The Boston Globe, June 14, 2002.

  33. For example, efforts in the Wisconsin legislature to regulate IVF in order to reduce the number of surplus embryos that will be destroyed or used for research. See also Kiefer, F. “A call for federal oversight of fertility clinics, The Christian Science Monitor, August 21, 2001; Hall, C.” The forgotten embryo; Fertility clinics must store or destroy the surplus that is part of the process, San Francisco Chronicle, August 20, 2001.

  34. Currently, a minority of states have passed legislation addressing in vitro fertilization. Cal. Penal Code §§ 367g (West 1999) (permitting use of preembryos only pursuant to written consent form); Fla. Stat. ch. 742.17 (1997) (establishing joint decision-making authority regarding disposition of preembryos); La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§§§ 9:121 to 9:133 (West 1991) (establishing fertilized human ovum as biological human being that cannot be intentionally destroyed); Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 10, §§ 556 (West 2001) (requiring written consent for embryo transfer); Tex. Family Code Ann. §§ 151.103 (West 1996) (establishing parental rights over child resulting from preembryo). See also “Human Cloning and Other Crimes,” The Age (Melbourne) June 17, 2002.

  35. In re Marriage of Buzzanca, 61 Cal. App. 4th 1410 (1998); Johnson v. Calvert, 5 Cal. 4th 84 (1993).

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Wisconsin Law School,

    R.Alta Charo J.D.

  2. Department of Medical History and Bioethics, University of Wisconsin Medical School, University of Wisconsin, Madison, 5211C Law Building, 975 Bascom Mall, Madison, 53706, WI, USA

    R.Alta Charo J.D.

Authors
  1. R.Alta Charo J.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

J.D., R. Children by choice: reproductive technologies and the boundaries of personal autonomy. Nat Med 8 (Suppl 10), S23–S29 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1038/nm-fertilityS23

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nm-fertilityS23

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing