home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
TIME: Almanac 1995
/
TIME Almanac 1995.iso
/
time
/
100289
/
10028900.019
< prev
next >
Wrap
Text File
|
1994-03-25
|
4KB
|
79 lines
<text id=89TT2559>
<title>
Oct. 02, 1989: Whose Lives Are These?
</title>
<history>
TIME--The Weekly Newsmagazine--1989
Oct. 02, 1989 A Day In The Life Of China
</history>
<article>
<source>Time Magazine</source>
<hdr>
NATION, Page 19
Whose Lives Are These?
</hdr><body>
<p>A judge sets a pro-life precedent for frozen embryos
</p>
<p> The dilemma might have stumped even King Solomon: what to
do with seven fertilized eggs of a divorcing Tennessee couple
that are frozen at an in-vitro fertilization clinic in
Knoxville. Mary Sue Davis, 29, is unable to conceive by natural
means and wants custody of her "pre-born children" for future
implantation. Junior Davis, 31, claims he is being "raped of my
reproductive rights" by his estranged wife and insists on having
a joint say on the future of the embryos. "I do not want a child
of mine in a single-parent situation," he argued.
</p>
<p> Last week in Maryville, Tennessee Circuit Court Judge W.
Dale Young announced his decision in the unprecedented case: the
embryos are people, not property, and should go to the mother.
In an opinion loaded with some of the coded language that often
surrounds abortion controversies, Young ruled that "human life
begins at conception." The lawsuit ought to be decided as a
question of custody, he concluded, and "it is to the manifest
best interests of the child or children, in vitro that they be
available for implantation." Questions of final custody, child
support and visitation rights will be decided later if there is
a birth. Junior Davis immediately announced he would appeal.
</p>
<p> Many medical and legal experts fear that the ruling, if
upheld, could slow in-vitro research and intensify the national
abortion debate. "A bad decision," says Ellen Wright Clayton,
a specialist in law and pediatrics at Vanderbilt University. The
judge could simply have weighed the respective interests of each
spouse, Clayton contends, and decided to award the eggs to Mrs.
Davis without going on to say when life begins.
</p>
<p> Young based his ruling on the testimony of Dr. Jerome
Lejeune, a French specialist in human genetics who testified
that the seven embryos each have unique characteristics that
distinguish them as human beings. Three other experts argued
that the embryos possess only the potential for life. Their
views echo those of professional groups like the American
Fertility Society, whose ethical committee in 1986 concluded
that "the pre-embryo deserves respect greater than that accorded
to human tissue but not the respect accorded to actual persons."
</p>
<p> Tennessee was not the only site of an embryo dispute. Last
week Risa and Steven York of California quietly settled their
lawsuit against the Virginia institute holding their frozen
embryo. The institute agreed to release the cells to the Yorks
for implantation on the West Coast if it would not be held
responsible for what happens when it surrenders custody.
</p>
<p> Such controversies underscore the lack of clear rules to
help resolve many of the ambiguities raised by the decade-old,
$1 billion in-vitro baby business -- particularly when the
clinics and couples, like the Davises, fail to set out their
rights and responsibilities in contracts. "Legislators don't
want to touch this hot potato," says Boston University Law
School professor Frances Miller, "so the courts have to deal
with these issues." With more than 200 conception clinics around
the country, and 2 million couples seeking their services, the
judges may get a workout.
</p>
</body></article>
</text>