UCI and Infertility Experts
This is an excerpt from the paper...
2. The issues in the case of the alleged misuse by infertility experts at UCI of stored eggs that belonged to a woman who unsuccessfully tried in vitro fertilization (IVF) with her husband and that were fertilized in vitro with the sperm of another man, then implanted successfully into the womb of that man's infertile wife (who later gave birth), involve legal interpretation and disposition of terms, human biological functions, and human social roles: genetic, nurturing, and complete fatherhood; and genetic, carrying, nurturing, and complete motherhood (Shannon 80). Nurturing in this context is a social and not biological role, and carrying in this context is a biological role that is gestational but not genetic. By Shannon's nomenclature, the child that was of woman born was the product of a carrying-nurturing (but not genetic) mother and a complete father. However, the child as a biological entity can also be seen as the genetic offspring of a complete father and a genetic mother. Therefore, the case will perforce also involve legal interpretation and disposition of the role of the child and what constitutes the reality of that child. The genetic mother's eggs were used in IVF conception but donated without her consent.If the allegations are correct, UCI deceived both sets of parents. However, the lawsuit set forth is by the mother and father in Couple A, the genetic mother (CAM) and her husband (CAF, genetically unrelated but evidently desirous of becoming a nurturing fa
. . .
e third party, UCI, enabled a CAM's genetic child to be placed with another family and prevented CAM's claim on the child. But to dishonor CAM's claim on the child is to discriminate against Couple A on account of CAM's gender. This is not fair in law.
Shannon asks whether "facts of biological contingency constitute rights or entitlements to care[.] While such facts--such as infertility--may be unfortunate, do they create a situation of unfairness that society is obligated to remedy"? (Shannon 87). Shannon implies that the answer is no, but the very purpose of this suit is to argue that the answer must be yes. The social baggage imposed on the child by a biological accident is the principal reason. The biological misappropriation of CAM's ovum, for social-nurturant reasons inuring to Couple B's benefit, creates a social obligation to the CAM's genetic child, supported by the biological reality of CAM's genetic parentage. Cases of children of nurturant but not genetic parents who vigorously seek their genetic parentage are well documented (Orenstein 28ff). The fact that previous cases by and large involve searches for donor dads is an accident of technology, and there is no reason to suppose that in future, genetic offspring of un
. . .
Some common words found in the essay are:
, Couple B's, Couple A's, Baby Jessica, CAM CAF, Couple Shannon, Furthermore CBM, CBM CBF, Couple Couple, CAM Krause, genetic mother, claim child, cam's genetic, complete father, cam's claim, third party, social consequences, father couple, couple a's, couple b's, construction genetic ties, actions third party, father couple a's, cam's claim child, legal construction genetic,
Approximate Word count = 1472
Approximate Pages = 6 (250 words per page)
|
Customer Service
to Over
32,000 Professionally Written Papers!!!
